Document: EB 2017/121/R.8 Agenda: 5(b) Date: 2 August 2017 E Distribution: Public Original: English

Republic of the Philippines

Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation

Note to Executive Board members Focal points: Technical questions: Dispatch of documentation:

Oscar A. Garcia William Skinner Director Chief Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD Governing Bodies Tel.: +39 06 5459 2274 Tel: +39 06 5459 2974 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Fumiko Nakai Senior Evaluation Officer Tel.: +39 06 5459 2283 e-mail: [email protected]

Executive Board — 121st Session Rome, 13-14 September 2017

For: Review EB 2017/121/R.8

Contents

Acknowledgements ii Executive summary iii

Appendix I. Agreement at Completion Point 1 II. Main report – Republic of the Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation 5

i EB 2017/121/R.8

Acknowledgements

This country strategy and programme evaluation (CSPE) was conducted by Fumiko Nakai, IOE Senior Evaluation Officer and lead evaluator, with contributions from Derek Poate (IOE principal senior consultant – country programming and strategic issues), Maliha Hussein (IOE senior consultant – lending portfolio assessment) and Elmer Mercado (IOE consultant – natural resource management, local institutions and indigenous peoples' issues). Laure Vidaud, IOE Evaluation Assistant, provided administrative support. The evaluation benefited from a peer review within IOE. IOE is grateful to IFAD’s Programme Management Department – in particular, the Asia and the Pacific Division - for their collaboration on this evaluation. Deep appreciation is also due to the Government of the Philippines for its cooperation throughout the evaluation process, including organizational and logistical support for field visits by the CSPE mission and co-organizing the national workshop held in Manila on 16 November 2016 – and particularly the National Economic Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Department of Trade and Industry and IFAD-financed project staff. IOE also thanks its other partners who gave of their time to meet with the CSPE team and share their views.

ii EB 2017/121/R.8

Executive summary

I. Background and context 1. In line with the IFAD Evaluation Policy (2011) and as approved by the Executive Board at its 116th session in December 2015, the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE) undertook the first country strategy and programme evaluation (CSPE) of the Republic of the Philippines in 2016. 2. Scope. The CSPE assessed the IFAD-Government partnership pursued under the country strategic opportunities paper and programme of 1999 and 2009 respectively. The evaluation covered the following areas: (i) the lending portfolio (seven loans that became effective between 2003 and 2015); (ii) non-lending activities (knowledge management, policy dialogue, partnership-building and selected grants under implementation after 2010); and (iii) the performance of IFAD and the Government. 3. Objectives. The CSPE has two main objectives: (i) to assess the results and performance of the IFAD-financed country strategy and programme; and (ii) to generate findings and recommendations for the future partnership between IFAD and the Republic of Philippines for enhanced development effectiveness and rural poverty eradication. The CSPE was conducted in line with the IOE Evaluation Manual (second edition, published in 2015). The findings, lessons and recommendations from the CSPE will inform the preparation of the new country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) scheduled for submission in 2017. 4. CSPE process. The CSPE was conducted in several phases. The preparatory stage involved a mission to the Philippines between 27 January and 5 February 2016 and the preparation of the CSPE approach paper. The main CSPE mission visited the Philippines from 29 March to 22 April 2016. It included meetings in Manila, as well as field visits to eight provinces in four regions (Cordillera Administrative Region, Northern Mindanao, Western Visayas and Eastern Visayas). The project performance evaluation (PPE) mission for the Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP), which was conducted in January 2016, made field visits to two other regions (Caraga and SOCCSKSARGEN), in addition to the Cordillera Administrative Region. The findings of that PPE provided inputs for the CSPE. 5. IFAD in the Philippines. Since 1978, IFAD has supported 15 loan-financed projects in the Philippines for a total cost of US$771.5 million. The total amount of IFAD lending to date is US$241.9 million, out of which this evaluation covers seven IFAD loans amounting to US$153.4 million. In the earlier period, cofinancing of projects initiated by other international financial institutions used to be IFAD’s main operating modality in the Philippines, but this pattern has changed over the past decade. In its active portfolio, IFAD now directly supervises all projects but one, which is cofinanced with the Asian Development Bank. IFAD established its country presence in the Philippines in 2009. 6. IFAD prepared COSOPs in 1999 and 2009. All three pipeline projects included in the 2009 COSOP experienced a long gestation period: one of these was approved in December 2012 (with significant implementation delays) and the other two in 2015. IFAD's Philippines portfolio has been a mixture of area-based projects with multi-sectoral components based on a participatory approach, and interventions with wide geographical coverage and a sectoral focus. The main target group has included upland farmers, indigenous peoples, agrarian reform beneficiaries and fishers. Geographical coverage has been extensive between the different projects. The diversity of government agency partners in the loan-financed projects is a notable point in the portfolio.

iii EB 2017/121/R.8

7. With the presence of development partners with large resource envelopes, IFAD financing constitutes a very minor part of the official development assistance to the Philippines (about 5 per cent in the agriculture sector). II. Lending portfolio 8. Relevance. The project objectives and thrusts have generally been well aligned with government and IFAD strategies. However, one programme stands out in the portfolio: the Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme (RaFPEP). This programme was conceived in response to the 2007-2008 food price crisis and in support of the Government's Rice Self-Sufficiency Plan, with two distinct sub- projects: one for short-term seed acquisition and distribution for the first year (cofinanced with the European Union), and the other for longer-term support for communal irrigation systems. While IFAD corporate documents emphasize the Fund's strategic role in supporting the transition from a short-term post-emergency response to medium- to long-term solutions, in this case the two sub-projects were largely disconnected even if financed by the same loan. 9. The needs, constraints and opportunities of the different target groups, and differentiated strategies for reaching them were not always clearly identified. For example, "farmers on communal irrigation systems" were treated the same way at design, without recognizing differences between land owners, tenants and sharecroppers; or in microenterprise development support, it was not clear whether the focus was to be more on the smallest microenterprises or the larger ones or both. On the positive side, there has been a strong focus on gender mainstreaming in the projects. Even when there was little reflection on this in design (e.g. the irrigation sub-project under RaFPEP, RuMEPP), the proposed project activities have generally been highly relevant to women, demonstrating the potential to contribute to their social and economic empowerment. 10. The overall thrusts of project activities are judged to be relevant to the needs of the rural poor. But in some cases there are design weaknesses – for example, wrong or uncertain assumptions, under-design, complex design or lack of clarity in impact pathways, leading to issues such as: (i) unclear purposes and roles of different types of beneficiary groups and organizations, with some positive exceptions such as irrigators’ associations; (ii) support to land titling for indigenous peoples with insufficient reflection on different contexts, coordination challenges with various agencies and legislation; and (iii) predominant focus on credit lines as a means to improve access to finance by microenterprises, overlooking the need and opportunities to enhance supply capacity of financial service providers. 11. Effectiveness. The achievements relative to the objectives have been most notable and visible in relation to support to irrigated agriculture, rural infrastructure, improved participation of communities in development planning and implementation, and in strengthening their organizations, although with varied performance for different types of organizations. The effectiveness of the group- based approach pursued under some projects (e.g. enterprise groups) for increasing livelihood opportunities has not been proven with convincing results and evidence. 12. RuMEPP made a significant contribution to the development of microenterprises in some cases. However, in the absence of comprehensive and reliable data, the extent of such successes among those who were reached by the programme, as well as the acceptable attrition rate, is not known with certainty. 13. The evidence is mixed for areas such as natural resources management and improved access to markets, also given that the focus on the latter is more recent. Furthermore, the earlier success in supporting land tenure security for indigenous peoples hailed as a pioneer initiative in previous projects has faced challenges in the Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARMP2). This is partly attributable to changing or inconsistent interpretation

iv EB 2017/121/R.8

and application of policies and regulations and the varying contexts in different geographical areas. Faced with these challenges, little was achieved under CHARMP2 in this regard against the set project objectives and targets. 14. Overall, an analysis of data on the number of beneficiaries or outreach has proved to be challenging. There are inconsistencies in the figures between different reports due to a number of factors, including: (i) double-counting of the same beneficiaries under different activities; (ii) difficulties in defining and recording direct or indirect beneficiaries; and (iii) differences in interpretation of how the number of beneficiaries should be calculated. While gender-disaggregated data are well recorded in individual projects, consistent attention has not been given to differences within the overall target group. 15. Efficiency. There are a number of indications of efficiency, including a relatively low proportion of project management costs compared to other countries, and overall high level of funds utilized despite initial delays. Except for one project, for which the actual project management cost was reported as 15 per cent, this figure is about 6 per cent for projects completed or close to completion. 16. The level of additional financing mobilization is also high: on average US$2.66 for every dollar invested by IFAD, compared to the corporate target of US$1.6. However, it should be noted that the project cofinanced with US$100 million from the Asian Development Bank (Integrated Natural Resource Management Project [INREMP]) pushes up the figure significantly. 17. One of the weak areas with regard to efficiency has been the considerable time lags between conceptualization/inception and effectiveness. However, the timeline from loan approval to effectiveness and the first disbursement is on average comparable to the average timelines of the IFAD Asia and the Pacific Division. 18. Another area of weakness has been delays in disbursement and implementation, especially in initial years. INREMP has been lagging far behind in disbursement and implementation progress. 19. Rural poverty impact. The most significant and consistent impact across the projects is the contribution to enhancing the way government agencies and local government units (LGUs) work on rural development initiatives and how they work with the rural poor, e.g. the use of a participatory approach in tandem with the efforts to strengthen organizations of the rural poor to effectively participate in such processes. RuMEPP contributed to the increase in focus by the Department of Trade and Industry on microenterprise development and led to the launching of a number of major initiatives. In broad terms, the projects have contributed to enhanced collaboration and "convergence" among different government agencies, LGUs and non-public actors. 20. The portfolio has made a good impact on human and social capital and empowerment, especially in terms of individual skills and capacity for economic activities, and in empowering the communities to participate in planning, implementing and monitoring development activities, infrastructure maintenance; promoting integration of tribal leaders into local development councils where indigenous peoples are a minority; and strengthening of irrigators' associations. Impact on the capacity of beneficiaries' organizations to engage in productive, enterprise or marketing activities seems to be mixed, due to various factors. 21. The impact on agricultural productivity and food security is visible, in particular as a result of the irrigation support activities but the impact of other interventions on food security is less clear. While there certainly have been significant contributions to household incomes (e.g. through microenterprise development and income- generating activities), it is difficult to be conclusive on the extent and magnitude due to insufficient data.

v EB 2017/121/R.8

22. Sustainability of benefits. For this criterion, the evaluation assesses the likely continuation of benefits generated by the projects beyond the phase of external funding support. The main areas for which the sustainability of benefits is assessed are: (i) collective capacity of beneficiaries and their organizations; (ii) physical infrastructure; and (iii) pro-poor institutions and approaches of partners to work with the rural poor. 23. With regard to collective capacity of beneficiaries, organizations such as irrigators' associations with a clear mandate and legal status have a high likelihood of growth and sustainability. Several factors work in favour of irrigators' associations: a clear institutional home (the National Irrigation Administration [NIA]), continuous supervision and support by the NIA, regular incomes to support operations and maintenance (irrigation service fees), and the centrality of irrigation systems to their livelihoods. On the other hand, the assessment of sustainability of larger and more formal community institutions and people's organizations is mixed, and that of much smaller informal groups supported by projects (e.g. self-help groups or livelihood interest groups) is even less certain and more variable. For these smaller groups in particular, sustainability will be a challenging proposition if they do not have a fuller appreciation from the outset of the project (through the project approach and activities) of the longer-term livelihood and economic advantages that membership of groups and associations can bring. 24. As for physical infrastructure, the prospects of the rehabilitated irrigation facilities being maintained are very good, given a growing trend of collection rates of irrigation service fees and improved institutional and governance capacity of irrigators' associations. Also for other types of public infrastructure, the likelihood of sustainability appears to be good. The positive factors include: (i) community ownership derived from the participatory planning and implementation process (needs identification and involvement in supervision of works); (ii) systems of fee collection where relevant (e.g. for domestic water supplies); and (iii) commitment by LGUs. 25. In general, the prospects for sustainability of pro-poor institutions and approaches supported by the projects are also favourable. In the CSPE's view, this is mainly due to the overall supportive policy, legislative and institutional framework in the country. This is also reflected in relatively high scores in the rural sector assessments conducted for IFAD's performance-based allocation system. 26. Innovation and scaling up. Innovation has improved ways of working on projects. It is worthwhile noting a couple of good examples of grant-loan interaction, where innovations that originated in regional grants have been taken up in loan-financed projects (e.g. supporting farmer business schools, cataloguing and developing the value chain for heirloom rice varieties). 27. All innovations reported to have been scaled up or to have potential for scaling up are fairly small-scale and technical in nature and reflect what IFAD describes as “scaling up of activities” rather than "scaling up of results". Although the examples are fairly modest, they demonstrate effective use of project financing and knowledge management. On the other hand, linkage of innovations with scaling-up and policy dialogue or engagement has been less effective. 28. Gender equality and women's empowerment. There have been visible efforts to promote gender equality and women's empowerment at the project level, resulting in notable achievements. This was the case even where the design documents were weak on gender issues (e.g. RuMEPP) and despite the fact that the situation of women in the Philippines is considered to be better than in many other countries. The country programme as a whole has also been effective in highlighting the importance of gender issues through the IFAD Philippines Gender Network. In addition, as observed from the CSPE's field visits, many staff of project offices, major government agencies in the field and local government units are women.

vi EB 2017/121/R.8

29. The projects generally provided men and women with opportunities to participate in and benefit from economic activities. Women were in the majority in many groups and among the microenterprises supported. For new women microentrepreneurs (start-ups) who had no or little stable income-generating opportunities, their participation in the project provided them with new or better sources of incomes. 30. Women's participation in decision-making processes in different forums has increased, whether membership organizations or community gatherings, due to a combination of encouragement, exposure and awareness-raising, and better knowledge and skills. In CHARMP2, the proportion of women in leadership positions is reported to range between 45 and 50 per cent in different types of groups. Even in irrigators' associations, which used to be considered more as men's domain, along with increasing membership of women, there has been a notable rise in women holding leadership positions: 32 per cent reported under the RaFPEP irrigation sub-project, surpassing the target of 30 per cent. 31. While no comprehensive data are available, women's increased involvement in productive activities does not appear to have resulted in an excessive workload for them. Indeed, women tend to be satisfied with improved opportunities to spend their time on income-generating activities, and it is reported that their husbands are generally supportive of their wives’ business activities and may also contribute labour. 32. Environment and natural resources management. Among the four projects completed or at an advanced stage of implementation, two had a particularly strong focus on natural resources management: Northern Mindanao Community Initiative and Resource Management Project (NMCIREMP) and CHARMP2. According to the earlier project performance assessment of NMCIREMP, there were a number of achievements (e.g. improved management of natural resources for Lake Mainit), but more could have been done had the activities related to natural resource management been initiated earlier in the project. On the other hand, under CHARMP2, while activities in reforestation and agro-forestry have progressed well in terms of planting activities, concrete benefits for households and communities are still to be realized. 33. Adaptation to climate change. The dimension of climate change adaptation was not explicitly identified in earlier projects, also because IFAD developed a Climate Change Strategy in 2010. Nonetheless, a number of the activities undertaken are relevant. Such activities include training and capacity-building of farmers on sustainable natural resources management practices, including soil and water conservation techniques, crop rotation and disaster risk reduction. In some cases design of some rural infrastructure was adapted to strengthen resilience. III.Non-lending activities 34. Knowledge management. Knowledge management has been well integrated into the Philippines country programme. Various platforms have been instituted. First, annual country programme review meetings attended by representatives of active loan-supported projects and selected grants, government departmental staff and IFAD staff have facilitated reflection and sharing of lessons among loan and grant projects and improved implementation. Second, knowledge and learning markets are held annually. These are two-day public events that bring together stakeholders of the IFAD country programme in the Philippines and the general public to showcase the activities, accomplishments and products of IFAD-supported projects and targeted communities. Third, the IFAD Philippines Gender Network is a network of gender focal points from IFAD-funded projects, civil society organizations and implementing agencies. The network was created mainly to provide a forum for gender focal points to discuss and analyse gender issues and formulate recommendations.

vii EB 2017/121/R.8

35. All of these actions have contributed to experience-sharing and cross-fertilization. Some good linkages between the grant- and loan-financed projects have been noted, whereby experience and knowledge generated by activities supported by grant have been taken up by the loan-supported project and have contributed to improving project effectiveness. The role of the country office in facilitating these and other knowledge management initiatives has been crucial. However, the main missing element has been a way of channelling findings to help inform policy discussions. 36. Policy dialogue. The original objectives for policy dialogue set by IFAD in the 2009 COSOP were overambitious in terms of both the scope and the envisaged approach and process, and relied too much on the expectation that issues emerging from the annual country programme reviews and the knowledge and learning markets would feed into higher-level dialogue. In the absence of a regular national forum, IFAD needed to identify or promote opportunities for wider or structured dialogue. The only example of this was the 2012 policy forum on food security. Without a routine mechanism, the policy linkage objectives in the COSOP were unrealistic. 37. The country programme has successfully identified some lessons from implementation experience in projects, which the knowledge management process was effective at disseminating. These were useful but were largely related to tools, techniques and activities rather than results and lessons with implications for broader strategic and policy issues. 38. Partnership-building. The country programme has established extensive partnerships with a large number of government line departments and oversight agencies (in particular, the National Economic and Development Authority [NEDA], Department of Finance and Department of Budget Management). The projects have tended to work through LGUs. They have also contributed to strengthening collaboration among many government line departments in support of the National Convergence Initiative. 39. Partnerships with civil society organizations have also been generally good, in particular those established through grants, annual country programme reviews and knowledge and learning markets. 40. On the other hand, fewer partnerships with other bilateral and multilateral development agencies have been established than were planned in the COSOP, and little has materialized with the private sector. 41. Grants. Since 2007, IFAD has financed 27 grants across the country with a value of US$28.66 million. Of these, two were used to directly cofinance loan-supported projects; six were country-specific grants, including one grant of an exceptionally high amount (US$4 million) for rehabilitation after Typhoon Haiyan; and 19 were global or regional grants covering several other countries along with the Philippines. 42. Three country-specific grants and three regional grants have been reviewed in detail by the CSPE. Good linkages were developed between two of these three regional grants and the loan projects, thanks to interaction at knowledge management platforms and events described earlier. The small country-specific grant to support results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of government project implementing partners contributed to the emergence of a new national results-based M&E system developed between NEDA and the Department of Budget Management. On the other hand, the grant provided in response to Haiyan was neither effective nor efficient in providing short-term post-emergency response: although the grant was processed quickly, implementation was significantly delayed due to a combination of slow procurement and disruption of government services following the typhoon. Questions are also raised as to the alignment of the grant with the IFAD Policy on Grant Financing, or with the

viii EB 2017/121/R.8

principle of the IFAD Guidelines for Disaster Early Recovery that synergies with other agencies and specialized (relief) organizations should be maximized and duplication of efforts avoided. IV. Performance of partners 43. IFAD. IFAD has been particularly strong with regard to actively supporting non- lending activities, facilitating grant-loan linkages, networking with government agencies and project partners, and direct supervision and implementation support. The IFAD Country Office and the country programme officer have been instrumental in these achievements. IFAD has effectively taken up responsibility for direct supervision and implementation support. 44. On the other side, there were a number of shortcomings, including the failure to develop coherent and useful strategic guidance for the country programme. The 2009 COSOP was aligned with key policy and strategic frameworks and built on previous experiences to a fair degree. But the COSOP strategic objectives were narrowly focused on projects with little added value over and above individual loans. In addition, the approach to targeting was not well thought through, and was mainly driven by geographical targeting of the "20 poorest provinces", which was not practical since the list changed from year to year and the poverty assessments have a high degree of statistical error. Other shortcomings included some design weaknesses, inadequate attention to supporting project M&E, and questions about its capacity to respond to emergency situations. 45. Government. A diverse range of government agencies and LGUs have been involved in the country programme and they have mostly proved to be valuable partners. The participation of NEDA in all supervision missions is an exemplary practice, indicating strong ownership by the Government. The availability of counterpart funding has been generally good, except for the challenges faced by LGUs to secure the required counterpart funding for infrastructure sub-projects, which was initially set at a higher percentage. The key challenge in the country programme has been the lengthy review process for new project proposals. V. Conclusions 46. The country programme presents a contrasting tale of innovation and delay; process has prevailed over progress. The IFAD Country Office enabled close follow- up on the country programme and excellent networking with partners in certain areas, which enhanced knowledge management. The attention to securing value added beyond financing investment projects has become even more relevant as IFAD seeks to find ways to effectively engage with middle-income countries such as the Philippines. But substantial delays in both implementation and the entry of new projects into the portfolio, as well as insufficient data and analysis on project results have diminished the learning to be fed into policy engagement processes and scaling-up from IFAD’s support. 47. The country programme was a good fit with national plans and IFAD’s strategic frameworks. But project design details did not always match strategic intentions. Targeting relied heavily on the Government's list of "the poorest provinces", an approach that was in fact not practicable. Selection or monitoring of targeted beneficiaries lacked clarity. A number of projects relied on working through beneficiaries' groups, but the roles and potential of such groups – for example, as an organizing conduit or to sustain a viable enterprise – were not always clear, with the exception of irrigators' associations. Widely spread geographical coverage, a multitude of activities and the low intensity of investment created potential challenges to demonstrate how poverty can be alleviated and how lessons can be generated for policy dialogue and scaling up. 48. There are a range of noteworthy and visible achievements in some areas, albeit with long gestation periods, delayed implementation and imperfect or poor

ix EB 2017/121/R.8

evidence about their contribution to outcomes. Highlights include support to irrigated agriculture, rural infrastructure, participation of communities in development planning and implementation, and strengthening of their organizations, greater involvement of indigenous peoples in local governance, and, to a lesser extent, microenterprise development. 49. Strengths of the country programme are evident particularly in the performance of knowledge management, collaboration between the loans and the grants, the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment, the projects’ support to empowerment of beneficiaries and their organizations, support to “convergence” and collaboration of different initiatives and government partners. 50. In general, non-lending activities played to the strengths of Philippine society. Close interaction and sharing of implementation experiences reflect a relatively strong civil society sector, good communications and well-educated middle managers. The presence and role of the IFAD Country Office has been instrumental in facilitating these activities. But the original objectives for policy dialogue were overambitious, and policy discussions were more about tools and techniques than higher-level strategic issues. There was insufficient engagement with other multilateral or bilateral agencies and little leverage achieved with government systems. IFAD emerges as a small but trusted implementation partner for the Government, but not an animated advocate for a middle-income country. 51. Both monitoring and evaluation have under-performed at the project level. Monitoring has generated data about implementation, but in many projects there are inconsistences even in basic information such as number of beneficiaries. Evaluation studies have failed to deliver reliable findings about outcomes. Reports display a mixture of poor conceptualization, weak or inappropriate survey designs and inattention by Management to fundamental issues such as incomes, equity and food security. Opportunities have been missed to use participatory planning for baseline data collection and to develop case studies of complex issues such as experience and lessons with forming and strengthening beneficiaries' groups and natural resources management. More substantive findings could have changed the nature and scope of IFAD’s policy engagement and led to higher-level dialogue with the Government and other development partners. VI. Recommendations 52. Provided below are the key recommendations for consideration by IFAD and the Government of the Philippines. All these recommendations are to be considered in in relation to the following contextual issues: the new Government in place as of July 2016 and its emerging new policy direction; the country's status as a middle- income country; the post-conflict situation in Mindanao; and the country’s exposure to disaster risks. 53. Recommendation 1: Carefully reflect on IFAD's comparative advantage relative to the country's needs in the new country strategy. The process for strategy development should take into consideration the following: (i) the country is not particularly in need of external financing, but rather is interested in acquiring knowledge; and (ii) in the presence of other partners with larger resource envelopes for the agriculture and rural sector, it is important to identify and agree on strategic issues and areas where IFAD's support and expertise could add value. The new country strategy should reflect IFAD's specificity and comparative advantage, in terms of the target group (e.g. indigenous peoples, fishers) and/or thematic areas with a clear pro-poor orientation, with a view to generating knowledge and lessons to inform investments by the Government and other partners for scaling-up. 54. In terms of engagement with indigenous peoples, and taking into consideration earlier achievements and prevailing institutional challenges, there is an opportunity to revisit and strategically reflect on future support. Land tenure remains a

x EB 2017/121/R.8

potential source of conflict and a key issue for the rural poor, and the new country strategy needs to consider ways to upgrade IFAD's support in this area – at ground level, as well as at policy level in collaboration with other partners. Furthermore, given the exposure of the country and the rural poor to natural disasters, the country strategy should include a vulnerability and risk assessment and a disaster preparedness country brief, relative to its strategic objectives and foreseen support. 55. The learning from project results and using information to support government policy should be an explicit element of the strategy. The strategy should discuss the opportunities for diverse types of support apart from investment financing, for example, reimbursable technical assistance and facilitating knowledge-sharing with other countries. 56. Recommendation 2: Enhance diagnostic analysis of the potential target group and targeting. The new COSOP will be partly defined by the recent entries to the portfolio of CONVERGE and FishCORAL. Within their target locations there is scope to improve the identification of potential beneficiaries and how to reach them. First, there should be good-quality analysis of the different groups within the potential target population, a differentiated approach to reach them, and monitoring of the outreach, beneficiary profiles and the targeting performance. Issues of food security and inclusiveness should be more strongly built into targeting. Second, a more strategic approach to increase intensity of investment (either under a specific project or by creating synergies between projects) in targeted locations should be pursued where possible, to enhance the likelihood of palpable impact. The latter might involve an agreement on some geographical focus in confined areas (building on experience in Mindanao, Visayas and the Cordillera Administrative Region [CAR]). 57. Recommendation 3: Strengthen leverage for policy engagement by improving the quality of knowledge and evidence. Building on generally good performance in knowledge management, an implementation strategy should be developed to improve the quality of evidence from M&E across the portfolio as a whole. This could include working more closely with NEDA and the Department of Budget Management in support of the national results-based M&E initiative, and supporting M&E by the implementing line departments as well as LGUs and other local stakeholders. Project designs should be accompanied by clear theories of change and should plan for analytical work and self-assessments. Consideration could be given to identifying and working with an organization to manage M&E and learning across the portfolio and bring consistency and rigour to evaluation design. 58. The established knowledge management platforms and processes should bring in other development partners and commission a comparative analysis of implementation issues and performance beyond IFAD-supported projects. In addition, the IFAD Country Office should be resourced to increase support to national policy and strategy issues. 59. Recommendation 4. Strengthen partnerships with other development partners to support the new Government. Good performance to date in working with government agencies, research organizations and civil society should be consolidated and expanded to other development partners. Relationships with some of the grant recipients with clear potential for value addition and linkage should be brought into the mainstream of the country strategy and programme. 60. Closer links could be established with multilateral and bilateral agencies. This does not necessarily have to be in the form of cofinancing, also given the Government's recent policy on reviewing project proposals separately from possible financing sources. Working through the Country Office, IFAD should collaborate with other development partners in the rural sector to strengthen the exchange of information with the Government, with a focus on the areas of its comparative advantage and the Government's priorities. There are also opportunities for IFAD to work with

xi EB 2017/121/R.8 other Rome-based agencies to provide advisory support on issues such as food production and food security, gender equality and women's empowerment in agriculture and rural development, and contingency planning for disaster risk reduction. Opportunities should be sought to develop schemes with the private sector to help support value chain investments by farmers.

xii Appendix I EB 2017/121/R.8

Republic of the Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation Agreement at Completion Point

A. Introduction 1. This is the first country strategy and programme evaluation (CSPE) in the Republic of the Philippines conducted by the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE). The main objectives of the CSPE were to: (i) assess the results and performance of the IFAD-financed country strategy and programme; and (ii) generate findings and recommendations for the future partnership between IFAD and the Republic of Philippines for enhanced development effectiveness and rural poverty eradication. 2. The CSPE assessed the IFAD-Government partnership pursued under the country strategic opportunities paper/programmes (COSOPs) of 1999 and 2009. To inform the assessment, the CSPE covered: (i) the lending portfolio (US$153.4 million across seven loans effective between 2003 and 2015); (ii) non-lending activities (knowledge management, policy dialogue, partnership building, and selected grants); and (iii) performance of IFAD and the Government. 3. This agreement at completion point (ACP) contains recommendations based on the evaluation findings and conclusions presented in the CSPE report, as well as proposed follow-up actions as agreed by IFAD and the Government. The signed ACP is an integral part of the CSPE report in which the evaluation findings are presented in detail, and will be submitted to the IFAD Executive Board as an annex to the new country strategic opportunities programme for the Philippines. The implementation of the recommendations agreed upon will be tracked through the President’s Report on the Implementation Status of Evaluation Recommendations and Management Actions, which is presented to the IFAD Executive Board on an annual basis by the Fund’s Management. B. Recommendations and proposed follow-up actions 4. Recommendation 1: Carefully reflect on IFAD's comparative advantage relative to the country's needs in the new country strategy. The new country strategy should reflect IFAD's specificity and comparative advantage, in terms of the target group (e.g. indigenous peoples, fishers) and/or thematic areas with a clear pro-poor orientation, with a view to generating knowledge and lessons to inform investments by the Government and other partners for scaling-up. 5. Engagement with indigenous peoples in a proactive manner is one of the areas where IFAD has accumulated experience and comparative advantage, in the Philippines and at corporate level. Taking into consideration earlier achievements and prevailing institutional challenges, there is an opportunity to revisit and strategically reflect on future support. Land tenure remains a potential source of conflict and a key issue for the rural poor, and the new country strategy needs to consider ways to upgrade IFAD's support in this area. Furthermore, given the exposure of the country and the rural poor to natural disasters, the country strategy should include a vulnerability and risk assessment and a disaster preparedness country brief. 6. Learning from project results and using information to support government policy should be an explicit element of the strategy. The strategy should discuss the opportunities for diverse types of support apart from investment financing, such as reimbursable technical assistance and knowledge-sharing with other countries. Proposed Follow-up: IFAD and the Government agree with this recommendation. Formulation of the IFAD country strategy (envisaged for presentation to the IFAD board by December 2017) will build on the Philippine Development Plan, selecting areas where IFAD can add most value. The Government has adopted a Revised

1 Appendix I EB 2017/121/R.8

Financing Framework that (i) prioritises programmes for Government support; (ii) determines whether they can be funded domestically; and (iii) selects any required financing partner based on technical and cost advantages. IFAD and NEDA shall dialogue closely to determine the development challenges that IFAD can best contribute to - which included IP issues, land tenure, commercialising smallholder agriculture, and strengthening pro-poor value chains and rural enterprises. In selecting future interventions and policy areas where IFAD can best support the Government, IFAD’s Social, Environmental and Climate Procedures (SECAP) shall provide a foundation for prioritising environmental and natural resources management, climate change, and other developmental and social challenges.

7. Recommendation 2: Enhance diagnostic analysis of the potential target group and targeting. Within the target locations of investment projects, there is scope to improve the identification of potential beneficiaries and how to reach them. First, there should be good-quality analysis of the different groups within the potential target population, a differentiated approach to reach them, and monitoring of the outreach, beneficiary profiles and the targeting performance. Issues of food security and inclusiveness should be more strongly built into targeting. Second, a more strategic approach to increase intensity of investment (either under a specific project or by creating synergies between projects) in targeted locations should be pursued where possible, to enhance the likelihoods of palpable impact. The latter might involve an agreement on a geographical focus in confined areas (building on experience in Mindanao, Visayas and Cordillera). Proposed Follow-up: IFAD and the Government agree on the need for qood diagnostics of the target group and to monitoring of targeting performance. This will be founded on a Social, Environmental and Climate Procedures (SECAP) Study, which identifies key vulnerabilities in the country for different potential target groups in future programming. For ongoing projects, the target groups and targeting strategy have been approved by IFAD’s Executive Board and the Government. IFAD supervision missions will support Government in assessing outreach and efficacy of targeting. Opportunities for synergies are regularly reviewed during the IFAD Annual Country Programme Review (ACPoR). At these events, NEDA and government agencies, development partners, NGOs and farmer organisations also discuss operational targets and outreach. Synergies are regularly identified and partnerships established between IFAD-funded loans and grants. To optimise efficiency and maximise returns, synergies between projects will continue to be sought. IFAD and NEDA do not agree on confining IFAD assistance within a geographic focus. Different interventions, with different outcome targets, should be directed to areas where they are respond best to the needs of their respective target group. Because each geographic zone may have different specificities, focussing different projects into one zone is not certain to maximise impact. Instead, IFAD and NEDA may seek to intensify investments by designing larger-sized projects. 8. Recommendation 3: Strengthen leverage for policy engagement by improving the quality of knowledge and evidence. Building on generally good performance in knowledge management, an implementation strategy should be developed to improve the quality of evidence from monitoring and evaluation (M&E) across the portfolio. This could include working more closely with NEDA and the Department of Budget Management in support of the national results-based M&E initiative, and supporting M&E by the implementing line departments as well as LGUs and local stakeholders. Project designs should be accompanied by theories of change and should plan for analytical work and self-assessments. Consideration could be given to identifying and working with an organization to manage M&E and

2 Appendix I EB 2017/121/R.8

learning across the portfolio and bring consistency and rigour to evaluation design. 9. The established knowledge management platforms and processes should bring in other development partners and commission a comparative analysis beyond IFAD- supported projects. In addition, the IFAD Country Office should be resourced to increase support to national policy and strategy issues. Proposed Follow-up: IFAD and the Government agree with this recommendation. IFAD and NEDA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2008 to support collaboration in results monitoring, and IFAD has supported capacity building in NEDA M&E. The MoU will be reviewed to strengthen joint actions on improving the M&E of IFAD supported projects in alignment with government M&E systems. Working with NEDA, IFAD will strengthen the annual KLM-PE event by upgrading it into a more strategic and programmatic platform to build on learnings that can be turned into policy and program proposals. IFAD will explore options to engage a qualified research institute for impact studies of projects ready for scaling up. As part of strengthening knowledge sharing, the platform shall engage both IFAD-supported projects and non-IFAD projects in the country.

10. Recommendation 4. Strengthen partnerships with development partners to support the Government. Good performance to date in working with government agencies, research organizations and civil society should be expanded to other development partners. Relationships with grant recipients with clear potential for value addition and linkages should be mainstreamed in the country strategy. 11. IFAD should work more closely with other multilateral and bilateral development partners in the rural sector to strengthen the exchange of information with the Government. There are opportunities for IFAD to work with other Rome-based UN agencies to provide advice on issues such as food production and food security, gender equality and women's empowerment in agriculture and rural development, and disaster risk reduction. Opportunities should be sought for private sector partnerships that support value chain investments by farmers. Proposed Follow-up: IFAD and the Government agree with this recommendation. IFAD will explore options for joint events with NEDA and ADB on selected themes in agriculture and rural development where IFAD can feed its expertise into ADB programming for rural transformation and poverty reduction. IFAD and NEDA shall continue knowledge exchange with World Bank projects, including the Philippines Rural Development Programme and the Inclusive Partnerships for Agricultural Competitiveness Project. The ICO shall support dissemination of knowledge from regional grants to the Government and partners.

3 Appendix I EB 2017/121/R.8

4 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Main report

Republic of the Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation

Contents

Currency equivalent, weights and measures 6 Abbreviations and acronyms 6 Map of IFAD-supported operations covered in the evaluation 8 Map of IFAD-supported closed operations in the Republic of the Philippines 9 I. Background 10 A. Introduction 10 B. Objectives, methodology and processes 10 II. Country context and IFAD's strategy and operations for the CSPE period 16 A. Country context 16 B. IFAD's strategy and operations for the CSPE period 25 III. The lending portfolio 30 A. Project performance and rural poverty impact 30 B. Other performance criteria 60 C. Overall project portfolio 65 IV. Non-lending activities 68 A. Knowledge management 68 B. Policy dialogue 71 C. Partnership-building 74 D. Grants 76 E. Overall assessment 78 V. Performance of partners 80 A. IFAD 80 B. Government 81 VI. Synthesis of the country strategy and programme performance 84 A. Relevance 84 B. Effectiveness 87 C. Overall assessment: country strategy and programme performance 91 VII. Conclusions and recommendations 93 A. Conclusions 93 B. Recommendations 95

Annexes I. Definition of the evaluation criteria used by IOE 97 II. Ratings of IFAD lending portfolio in the Republic of the Philippinesa 99 III. Ratings of the country strategy and programme: Republic of the Philippines 100 IV. List of IFAD-supported lending operations approved since 1978 101 V. List of IFAD-supported grants in or covering the Philippines under implementation after 2010 102 VI. Key policy and legislative framework 105 VII. 2009 COSOP Theory of Change 107

5 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

VIII. 2009 COSOP Results Management Framework 108 IX. Analysis of IFAD investments in the 20 poorest provinces 111 X. Overview of loan-financed projects: target group, objectives and components 114 XI. Project status report ratings for selected projects 2011-2015 118 XII. Philippines - loans projects baseline studies, surveys and impact assessments 123 XIII. List of key persons met 132 XIV. Bibliography 148

Currency equivalent, weights and measures

Currency equivalent Currency unit = Philippine Peso (PHP) US$1 = PHP 47 (July 2016)

Weights and measures Metric system

Abbreviations and acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank ADSDPP Ancestral domain sustainable development and protection plan ARB Agrarian reform beneficiary ARC Agrarian reform community ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao BPMET Barangay Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Teams CADC Certificate of ancestral domain claim CADT Certificate of ancestral domain title CALT Certificate of ancestral land title CAR Cordillera Administrative Region CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program CHARM1 Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project CHARMP2 Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project CIP International Potato Centre CIS Communal irrigation system CLE Corporate level evaluation COMMET Community-based Operation & Maintenance Monitoring and Evaluation Teams CONVERGE Convergence on Value Chain Enhancement for Rural Growth and Empowerment Project COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Programme CPP Communist Party of the Philippines CSPE Country strategy and programme evaluation DA Department of Agriculture DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DTI Department of Trade and Industry EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFS Farmer field school FishCORAL Fisheries, Coastal Resources and Livelihood Project

6 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

GDI Gender Development Index GDP Gross Domestic Product GII Gender Inequality Index GIZ German Technical Cooperation Agency GNI Gross National Income HDI Human Development Index ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development INREMP Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental Management Project IOE Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD IA Irrigators' association IPs Indigenous peoples IPRA Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act IRPEP Irrigated Rice Production Enhancement Project IRRI International Rice Research Institute JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency LGUs Local government units LIGs Livelihood Investment Groups M&E Monitoring and evaluation MTDP Medium Term Development Plan (2006-2010) MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front MNLF Moro National Liberation Front MTR Mid-term reviews NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NMCIREMP Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource Management Project NPA New People’s Army ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PCR Project completion report PDP Philippine Development Plan PPE Project performance evaluation PSR Project status report RaFPEP Rapid Food Production Enhancement Project RaSSFiP Rapid Seed Supply Financing Project RB-COSOP Results-based country strategic opportunities programme RES Rewards for environmental services RuMEPP Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme SHGs Self-help groups SIGI Social Institutions and Gender Index UNDP United Nations Development Programme WFP World Food Programme

7 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Map of IFAD-supported operations covered in the evaluation

8 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8 since 1978 since the Republic of the Philippines the of Republic the supported operations in operations supported - IFAD Map of

9 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Republic of the Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation

I. Background A. Introduction 1. In line with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Evaluation Policy1 and as approved by the 116th session of the IFAD Executive Board in December 2015,2 the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE) undertook the first country strategy and programme evaluation (CSPE) of the Republic of the Philippines in 2016. A CSPE is an evaluation of the results of partnerships between IFAD and the concerned government for reducing rural poverty and promoting inclusive rural transformation. 2. Since 1978 IFAD supported fifteen loan-financed projects in the Philippines for a total project cost of US$771.5 million. The total amount of IFAD lending to date is US$243.7 million, out of which this evaluation covers seven IFAD loans in the amount of US$154 million. Reflecting the economic development of the country, the lending terms for the Philippines have progressed from highly concessional to intermediate, and to ordinary terms. The Philippines is classified as a lower middle- income country. Table 1 A snapshot of IFAD operations since 1978 Item Details

Number of loans-funded projects approved 15 (first loan in 1978)

Total amount of IFAD financing US $ 243.7 million (US$241.9 million loans, US$1.8 million grants)

Counterpart funding (Government, US $ 234.1 million beneficiaries and domestic financial institutions)

Co-financing amount US $ 293.7 million

Total portfolio cost US $ 771.5 million

Co-financers ADB, EU, FAO, GEF, IBRD, OFID

Country Strategic Opportunities 1999 and 2009 Paper/Programme (COSOP)

Country presence in the Philippines Since 2009. Currently staffed with 1 country programme officer and 1 country programme assistant. Host Country Agreement not signed yet.

Country Programme Managers Omer Zafar (Jan 2016-), Benoit Thierry (Sep 2014-), Khalid El Harizi (May 2014-), Youqiong Wang (Feb 2011-), Sana Jatta (Apr 2002-)

Main lead implementing agencies Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Agrarian Reform, Dept of Trade and Industry, Dept of Environment and Natural Resources, National Irrigation Administration, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

B. Objectives, methodology and processes 3. The objectives of this CSPE are to: (i) assess the results and performance of the IFAD-financed strategy and programme; and (ii) generate findings and recommendations for the future partnership between IFAD and the Government of the Philippines for enhanced development effectiveness and rural poverty eradication. The latter is expected to serve as building blocks for formulation of the forthcoming Philippines results-based country strategic opportunities programme

1 IFAD (2011) Evaluation Policy. 2 EB 2015/116/R.2

10 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

(RB-COSOP), to be prepared by IFAD and the Government following the completion of the CSPE. 4. Scope. The CSPE assesses the results and performance of the partnership between IFAD and the Government pursued under COSOPs 1999 and 2009, while the latter is the main focus of the strategy assessment. The main unit of analysis of CSPEs is the country strategy and programme. The CSPE has a strategic focus building on the assessment of lending and non-lending activities. While recognizing that IFAD’s assistance represents only a small segment of government actions in the agriculture and rural development sector, the CSPE seeks to analyse wider issues related to IFAD-government partnership, such as IFAD’s strategic positioning in the country in relation to government priorities and the work of other development partners. The CSPE examines IFAD’s role in contributing to institutional and policy transformation for better impact in the context of the country's positioning in the regional and global economy currently classified as a lower middle-income country. The evaluation also explores innovative scaling-up approaches to achieve sustainable and inclusive smallholder agriculture development. 5. The CSPE has been coordinated with the ongoing corporate level evaluation (CLE) on IFAD's decentralization experience conducted by IOE. A case study for the Philippines was conducted for the CLE in coordination with the CSPE team and it provided inputs also to this CSPE. 6. As for the lending portfolio, the CSPE covers the projects approved after the 1999 COSOP, hence, seven loans that became effective between 2003 and 2015. The loans/projects covered can be grouped as follows: (i) three projects that have been completed (NMCIREMP, RuMEPP, and RaFPEP); (ii) one project that is at an advanced stage of implementation (CHARMP2); and (iii) three projects which have either been delayed in execution or have recently been approved in September 2015: (a) INREMP; (b) CONVERGE and (c) FishCORAL. Table 2 provides basic information and the evaluation criteria covered for each project. Table 2 Evaluability of projects covered by the 2016 CSPE Project names [lending terms] Implementation Disbursement Evaluation criteria* period rate (Feb 2016)

Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and 2003-2009 NA All criteria (project Resource Management Project (NMCIREMP) [HC] evaluated by IOE earlier)

Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme 2006-2013 NA All criteria (evaluated by (RuMEPP) [HC] IOE in 2016)

Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource 2008-2016 83 All criteria Management Project (CHARMP2) [HC]

Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme 2009-2016 94 All criteria (RaFPEP) with two sub-projects [I]

Rapid Seed Supply Financing Project (RaSSFiP) 2009-2011 NA

Irrigated Rice Production Enhancement Project 2009-2015 NA (IRPEP)

Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental 2013-2020 3 Relevance** Management Project (INREMP) [I]

Convergence on Value Chain Enhancement for 2015-2021 0 Rural Growth and Empowerment Project Relevance** (CONVERGE) [O]

Fisheries, Coastal Resources and Livelihood Project 2015-2020 0 Relevance** (FishCORAL) [O] Lending terms: HC – highly concessional; I – intermediate; O - ordinary * See annex I to this report for more information on the definition of the evaluation criteria. ** Efficiency will be discussed in relation to project processing and implementation progress so far (the latter only for INREMP) but no rating will be provided.

11 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

7. Among these seven loans, RaFPEP presents a peculiar case. This project – or "programme" financed by an IFAD loan with a grant by the European Union (EU) – included two sub-projects: Rapid Seed Supply Financing Project (RaSSFiP) and Irrigated Rice Production Enhancement Project (IRPEP). RaSSFiP was intended for an emergency situation and had a limited implementation period. The two sub- projects were handled separately in supervision and implementation support, and were rated separately in project status reports (PSRs) prepared by the Asia and the Pacific Division (APR). Given the different objectives of these sub-projects, CSPE assessment will also make a distinction between them in assessment and provide separate ratings to arrive at consolidated ratings for the whole programme. 8. Annex V contains a comprehensive list of grants under implementation after 2010, including country grants and regional/global grants, which covered the Philippines to varied extent. As per the CSPE approach paper, six grants3 were reviewed closely to inform the assessment of the performance of non-lending activities, and also as part of the assessment of country strategy. These grants were selected in consultation with APR staff responsible for the Philippines country programme with a view to: (i) covering different types of grants (in terms of, for example, recipients, key themes/areas, country vs. regional); and (ii) looking into indications of linkages with the lending portfolio. HARP was selected also because the grant amount is exceptionally high for a country grant with IFAD funding. 9. Methodology. The CSPE followed the IFAD Evaluation Policy4 and the IFAD IOE Evaluation Manual (second edition 2015). It adopts a set of internationally recognized evaluation criteria and a six-point rating scale (annex I). The approach paper for this CSPE served as a further and specific guidance for the exercise. 10. Given the time and resource constraints, as is normally the case with CSPEs and as indicated in the approach paper, no large-scale quantitative survey was conducted for the CSPE. The evaluation has been undertaken with a combination of a desk review of existing documentation (project documents, data and information generated by the projects, available baseline and impact assessment survey reports, information and periodical reports on the country portfolio, country strategy, various knowledge products, available statistical data, and other reports), interviews and discussions with IFAD staff, relevant stakeholders (implementing agencies and implementing partners), beneficiaries and communities covered in the projects, interviews with key informants, and direct observations in the field. Evidence collected from different sources has been triangulated. 11. The sites for field visits were selected based on prior consultations with project stakeholders and also based on a number of considerations such as coverage of diversities and different contexts balancing with time constraints, overlap of interventions under different projects (loans and grants), and security issues. 12. In general terms, the principles of theory-based evaluation have been applied in an attempt to evaluate plausible causal relationships under the COSOP. At the stage of preparing the approach paper, a schematic theory of change logic model was developed from the text of the 2009 COSOP (see annex VII), supplemented by discussions with country office and project staff. The implicit theory of change in the 2009 COSOP is that direct investment in partnership with the Government of the Philippines, supported by some selected regional grants would deliver innovative programmes targeted at different target groups in poor rural communities. Structured annual programmes of knowledge management and joint programme reviews would provide substantive material for policy dialogue, with the aim of successful investments being scaled up by the government and/or development partners. It is a knowledge-driven partnership strategy with a

3 Three country grants, one to NEDA, HARP, and one to Atikha. Two grants to CGIAR: CURE (IRRI), FoodStart (CIP) 4 http://www.ifad.org/pub/policy/oe.pdf

12 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

discrete set of independent investments. This model was used to help construct specific evaluation questions under the evaluation framework described below. 13. Evaluation frameworks and key issues. To guide the CSPE, an evaluation framework was developed as part of the CSPE approach paper. The evaluation questions, mostly derived from the IFAD IOE Evaluation Manual but some also adapted or added, guided data collection. In the context of IFAD's strategy and programme in the Philippines, the following issues were given particular attention for investigation: (i) coherence of the strategy and programme; (ii) delays to implementation process; and (iii) IFAD's role and added value given its small size in official development assistance in the Philippines. 14. Evaluation process. The CSPE was conducted in several phases. The preparatory stage involved the preparation of the CSPE approach paper, specifying the evaluation objectives, methodology, process, timelines, and key evaluation questions. Its preparation was informed by a desk review to contextualize the evaluation and the consultations with IFAD and the Government. 15. IOE fielded a CSPE preparatory mission (comprised the IOE lead evaluator and the IOE principal senior consultant) to the Philippines between 27 January and 5 February 2016 to consult with key stakeholders. On 27-28 January 2016, the CSPE team participated in the Annual Country Programme Review Workshop organized by the IFAD country team in Baguio. The participation in this workshop provided an opportunity for the CSPE team to meet with project staff and key stakeholders and to provide a briefing on the evaluation methodology, approach and process. It also served as an opportunity to develop better understanding of the county portfolio and implementation issues, and directly observe the efforts made for self- assessment and knowledge management. In addition to the participation in the Annual Country Programme Review Workshop, the CSPE preparatory mission interacted with key government agencies and development partners. 16. Overlapping the CSPE preparatory mission, IOE also conducted a project performance evaluation (PPE) mission for the Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP) in January 2016. The PPE provides an in-depth assessment of one programme that is part of this CSPE. 17. Between the preparatory and the main missions, the following activities were undertaken: (i) preparation of the approach paper, based on the comments on the draft by IFAD and the government; (ii) self-assessment of project performance (by project staff/government) and non-lending activities (by IFAD and the government); and (iii) consultations with project staff on field visits scheduling. 18. The main CSPE mission visited the Philippines from 29 March to 22 April 2016. It started off with a CSPE team meeting and a kick-off meeting convened by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) with participation from relevant agencies in Manila on 29 March 2016. In the periods 30 March to 6 April and 8-15 April 2016, the team travelled to the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), Regions X (Northern Mindanao), VI (Western Visayas) and VIII (Eastern Visayas) to interact with project staff, local government officials and staff, service providers and rural community members and to visit project activities. In these four regions, eight provinces5 and 21 municipalities were visited. On some days, the team split into two and visited different regions or different areas within the same province. The field visits were mainly to cover two projects at an advanced stage of implementation (CHARMP2 and RaFPEP-IRPEP), also given that the PPE was conducted for RuMEPP prior to the CSPE mission. In Region X (Northern Mindanao), the team also visited some areas and communities that were covered in a project completed in 2009 (NMCIREMP).

5 Benguet, Mount Province and Kalinga in CAR, Antique in Region VI, Leyte and Samar in Region VIII, Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental in Region X.

13 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

19. On 7 April and during the week of 18 April 2016, the team had various meetings in Manila, including different government agencies, development partners, NGOs and international agricultural research institutions (regional grant recipients). Annex XIII presents a list of people met. The team presented emerging findings at a wrap-up meeting on 21 April 2016, which was chaired by NEDA Deputy Director- General and attended by representatives of relevant agencies. 20. Following the main mission, the team continued with a further documents review and analysis of primary and secondary data obtained, including data from field visits, programme M&E data as well as official statistical data. The resulting draft report was then peer reviewed within IOE. It was thereafter shared with IFAD’s Asia and the Pacific Division and the Government of the Philippines. The comments by IFAD and the Government have been taken into account in the final report. 21. Sources of evidence. The evidence for this CSPE was derived from multiple sources: (i) loan project-related documentation and records (e.g. project design review records, project design documents, supervision mission reports, mid-term reviews (MTRs), project completion reports (PCRs), M&E data, baseline survey and impact assessment reports where available, project status reports, project-specific knowledge products, loan data); (ii) documentation on selected grant projects (e.g. design reports, supervision reports, grant completion reports); (iii) country programme related documents (e.g. COSOPs, COSOP MTR, annual country programme review workshop reports, knowledge products); (iv) relevant IOE reports (in particular, NMCIREMP project performance assessment, RuMEPP PPE report, but also other evaluations); (v) country background documentation and research studies on relevant issues; (vi) statistical data from the Philippines Statistics Authority or statistics offices of line government departments; (vii) self- assessments; and (vii) findings and observations obtained during field visits, stakeholder meetings and interviews. The data from various sources have been triangulated to inform the CSPE assessment. 22. Limitations. In general, the projects have kept fair records on use of funds, activities and outputs. However, the availability and/or the quality of data on outcomes and impacts were found to be weak. The CSPE analysis was hampered by missing data and inconsistent data. Even the data on some basic parameters such as the number of beneficiaries presented uncertainties on their accuracy in some cases and different sources provided inconsistent data. Similarly, where survey reports are available (e.g. baseline, outcome survey, impact assessment), their reliability was also questionable. For example, there were inconsistencies between the results of different surveys for the same project. The CSPE has drawn data and information from different sources to the extent possible (other available data, interviews and discussions and direct observations) to be triangulated with the survey findings to make an informed assessment. When available and accessible, the CSPE also revisited and reviewed the project database and original raw data sets. 23. As is often the case such evaluation, there was a limit to the extent field visits could be undertaken. The geographical areas covered by the projects are large and spread across different islands. Often the project sites are remote and not easily accessible. From the accounts of project staff, it is not uncommon that it requires a couple of hours of walk or even more, a ride in a tricycle, or a boat to get to the project sites, especially those in upland areas (covered in CHARMP2 and NMCIREMP). Furthermore, there were also security concerns, heightened even more just before the election on 9 May 2016. In some cases, the CSPE team had the opportunity to travel to somewhat less accessible areas, but it is acknowledged that there are many other much hard-to-reach places and it was not possible for the team to visit these places. Through discussions with project staff and stakeholders at LGUs, however, the team developed the appreciation about the challenges the project implementers face in day-to-day operations and the

14 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

difficulties faced by beneficiaries. In some places it was possible for the CSPE team to meet and interact with stakeholders from these areas in a different location.

Key points  This is the first CSPE in the Philippines.  The main purpose of this CSPE is to assess the results and performance of the IFAD- financed strategy and programme, and generate findings and recommendations for the future partnership between IFAD and the Government of the Philippines.  The CSPE assesses the results and performance of the lending and non-lending activities, the performance of IFAD and the Government.  Assessment was faced with the challenge of insufficient and inconsistent data, especially about outcomes and impacts. The CSPE team drew data from multiple sources, including revisiting project database and original raw data sets where possible, and triangulate them to inform the assessment.

15 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

II. Country context and IFAD's strategy and operations for the CSPE period A. Country context Geography, population, economy and political system 24. Geography. The Republic of the Philippines is an archipelago of over 7,100 islands with a total land area of 300,000 km2, and is located 800 km from the Asian mainland between the islands of Taiwan and Borneo, surrounded by three seas - the Philippines Sea, the South China Sea, and the Celebes Sea. The climate is tropical, temperatures ranging between 21-32ºC, with a northeast monsoon in November-April and a southwest monsoon in May-October. 25. Philippines’ islands are classified into three main geographical areas – Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. With its topography consisting of mountainous terrains, dense forests, plains, and coastal areas, the Philippines is rich in biodiversity. It is considered as one of the mega biodiversity countries in the world with a high percentage of flora and fauna endemism6. 26. The country is significantly at risk and vulnerable to extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change. According to the report published in 2015 by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific7, the Philippines was ranked third8 on a list of countries most exposed to natural disasters for the past 45 years. About 27.3 per cent of the total land area (8.34 million hectares) is considered to be vulnerable to drought, alternating with floods and typhoons on an annual basis. The country is annually struck by some 10 to 15 typhoons. The super-typhoon Haiyan in November 2013 killed over 6,000 people and displaced approximately four million people. 27. Agriculture, the sector on which two thirds of the poor depend for income and sustenance, is most vulnerable to vagaries of climate and weather.9 The Government estimates that between 2006 and 2013 disasters damaged over 6 million hectares of crops, with the total damage and losses in the agriculture sector of US$3.8 billion, caused by 78 natural disasters (2 droughts, 24 floods, 50 typhoons/tropical storms, 1 earthquake and 1 volcanic eruption).10 28. Population. The population of the Philippines was reported as 99.14 million in 2014, with 55 million living in rural areas (56 per cent of the total population)11. 12 The average annual population growth rate was around 1.6 per cent in 2014 . According to population projections, the Philippines’ population will be 111.78 million by 2020.13 Indigenous peoples, recognized by the Philippines Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, constitute around 10-15 per cent of the total population of the Philippines and live in 65 of the country's 78 provinces.14

6 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), country pages. 7 United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2005. Overview of Natural Disasters and their Impacts in Asia and the Pacific 1970-2014. 8 After Vanuatu and Tonga. 9ADB, Country Diagnostics Studies Philippines: Critical Development Constraints Economics and Research Department, 2007. 10 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security and Nutrition: A Call for Action to Build Resilient Livelihoods, May 2015. 11 According to the World Bank (World Development Indicators), total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship, except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. 12 World Bank (WB), World Development Indicators. 13 Philippines Statistics Authority population projections. 14 An unofficial survey conducted by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) estimates the population of indigenous peoples in the Philippines to be between 12-15 million. Main indigenous groups are collectively known as Igorot (northern mountains of Luzon), Lumad (southern island of Mindanao) and Mangyan (central islands and Luzon). (IFAD, Country Technical Note on Indigenous Peoples' Issues, 2005).

16 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

29. Filipino is the national language of the Philippines. In addition, there are more than 150 distinct indigenous languages and dialects.15 The official languages are Filipino and English. The population is predominantly Christian with 82.9 per cent Catholics, 5.4 per cent Protestants and 4.6 per cent Muslim.16 30. Economy. The Philippines is among the fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia. The country benefits from solid macroeconomic fundamentals, with strong growth, low and stable inflation, healthy current account surpluses, and more- than-adequate international reserves.17 The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has been relatively strong and stable in recent years (figure 1 and table 3). The services sector has been the main engine of growth (table 3). Within South East Asia, the Philippines has the second value added in services as a percentage of GDP after Singapore.18 The GDP accounted for US$284.6 billion in 2014. The GNI 19 per capita in 2014 was US$3,500, hence the Philippines is classified as a lower middle income country. Figure 1 Regional GDP growth rates

Table 3 Philippines macro-economic indicators between 2008 and 2014

Indicator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GDP growth (annual %) 4.3 1.2 7.6 3.7 6.7 7.1 6.1

GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,240 2,490 2,750 2,640 3,000 3,340 3,500

Agriculture, value added (% of GDP) 13.2 13.1 12.3 12.7 11.8 11.2 11.3

Industry, value added (% of GDP) 32.9 31.7 32.6 31.4 31.3 31.2 31.4

Services, etc., value added (% of GDP) 53.9 55.2 55.1 55.9 56.9 57.6 57.3

Inflation, GDP deflator (annual %) 7.6 2.8 4.2 4.0 2.0 2.1 3.2 Source: World Bank. World Development Indicators. 31. Although the economy of the Philippines has grown at a fast pace over last years, challenges to achieving more inclusive growth remain. Poverty afflicts about a quarter of the population and high rates of structural poverty remain, especially among households depending on agriculture.20

15 2000 Census of Population and Housing, conducted by the National Statistics Office. 16 Philippines Statistics Authority. 17 WB, Philippine Economic Update Moving Full Speed Ahead: Accelerating Reforms to Create More and Better Jobs, April 2016. 18 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Philippines 2016, Philippine reform environment: Successes and challenges. 19 World Bank, World Development Indicators. 20 World Bank 2016.

17 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

32. In terms of employment, the Philippines faces greater labour market challenges than its peers. The unemployment rate in the Philippines at around or above 7 per cent is higher than in the rest of ASEAN-5 countries.21 33. South-East Asia is the world’s most dynamic and diverse remittance market, with almost 13 million migrants living abroad. The Philippines ranks as the third biggest recipient of remittances in the world, having received US$24.3 billion (over 10 per cent of GDP) in 2012, and accounts for over half of all remittances to South-East 22 Asia. Personal remittances represented 9.8 per cent of GDP in 2013. The Commission on Filipinos Overseas estimated that as of December 2012, there were 10.49 million Filipinos overseas.23 34. Public sector finance. The fiscal health of the country has improved significantly over the past decade as a result of strong revenue collection, supported by the reforms of the value added tax and restrained spending. The main focus of public investment is on social services (e.g. health, education, social welfare). Agriculture and fisheries spending as part of total public increased more than twofold during 1998-2005, totalling PHP 47 billion in 2005.24 A positive trend was also observed in recent years, with public expenditures for the sector increasing from 2.7 per cent in 2011 to 4.6 per cent in 2013.25 In 2015, PHP 89.1 billion went towards boosting agricultural production projects under the Department of Agriculture (DA) and its attached agencies. 35. Political system. According to the 1987 constitution, the Philippines is a unitary presidential constitutional republic, with the President of the Philippines acting as the Head of State and the Head of Government, and functioning as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The President is elected by direct vote by people for a term of six years and may only serve for one term. The general elections were held on 9 May 2016 and the new administration took office on 1 July 2016. Agriculture 36. Despite the declining share in GDP26, agriculture remains important for the country. In 2014 it accounted for 11.3 per cent of the national GDP and nearly 30 per cent of employment.27 The total agricultural land area constitutes 42.7 per cent of the country’s total land area.28 Three-quarters of the cultivated area is devoted to subsistence crops and one-quarter to commercial crops, mainly for export. 37. Crop, livestock/poultry and fishery subsectors. It was reported in 2014 that the crop subsector contributed 51.7 per cent of total agricultural production followed by fisheries (17.7 per cent), livestock (16.1 per cent) and poultry (14.5 per cent).29 Main crops in order of value of production are: palay (paddy), banana, corn, coconut, sugarcane, mango, cassava, rubber and pineapple. The Philippines is among the top producers of tropical fruit products in the world.30 38. Livestock production is undertaken mainly by subsistence or small-scale producers for domestic markets. The fishery sub-sector is largely export-oriented with

21 Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. OECD, Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2016: Enhancing Regional Ties, 2016. 22 Ibid. 23 According to the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (2014), 4.93 million or 47 per cent of which are permanent migrants, 4.22 million or 40 per cent are temporary migrants and 1.34 million or 13 per cent are irregular migrants. 24 World Bank, Technical Working Paper: Philippines: Agriculture Public Expenditure Review, 2007. 25 Department of Budget and Management of the Republic of the Philippines, Sectoral distribution of Public Expenditures 2011-2013. 26 According to the World Bank, the share of agriculture GDP declined from 22 per cent in 1995 to 14 per cent in 2000. 27 World Bank, World Development Indicators. 28 Ibid. 29 Philippines Department of Agriculture, Annual Report 2014. 30 Its share of the world’s banana production was about 8 per cent in 2004, following only Thailand (24 per cent) and Brazil (9 per cent). It also accounts for 11 percent of world production of pineapples. World Bank, Philippines Agriculture: Public Expenditure Review, 2007

18 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

products such as tuna, shrimps and prawns being among the top ten agricultural exports. At the same time, there are also many Filipinos dependent on fishing as a source of food and livelihoods, and poverty persists among these small- scale/marginal fisher folks. The sector is faced with complex problems (e.g. low coastal productivity, habitat and watershed degradation, illegal fishing practices, overfishing, lack of access to basic services) that threaten its resource base. 39. Forestry subsector. Forest cover was estimated in 2003 at about 7.2 million ha, or only 41 per cent of the amount of classified forest land. With an average reforestation rate of just 18,000 ha per year, increasing the density of forest cover remains a concern.31 The continuing degradation of forests also contributes to low crop yields and the low rate of land utilization for agriculture, as it results in an inadequate water supply during the dry season and exacerbates damage to crops, fisheries, and rural infrastructure as a result of typhoons and increasing flooding during the wet season. 40. Agricultural exports and imports. Philippine agricultural exports used to play a prominent role in the economy by providing foreign exchange earnings and additional economic activities. However, with the increasing importance of non- traditional manufactured exports and the rapid growth of the service and industrial sectors, the share of agricultural exports to the country’s GDP has reduced from 6 per cent in 1980 to 2 per cent in 2010, and from an exporter, the Philippines became a net importer of agricultural products. Top agriculture and fisheries exports include coconut oil (15 per cent), banana (14 per cent), tuna (11 per cent), pineapple and products (7 per cent).32 The trade integration in the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) will have important implication on Philippines agricultural sector, with increasing competition from other countries for certain commodities. 41. Farms size. Philippine agriculture is mainly characterized by growing traditional crops on small family-owned farms. The 2012 Census of Agriculture33 reported 5.56 million farms/holdings covering 7.19 million hectares, hence an average area of 1.29 hectares per farm/holding. About 98 percent of the total farms/holdings in the country in 2012 had size of 7 hectares and below. Of these, three in every five farms/holdings were below 1 hectare with an average area of 0.28 hectare per farm/holding. The decrease in total farm area is attributed to gradual conversion of farmlands to residential and commercial use. The land distribution exercise undertaken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by the Government since 1993 also affected the decline in average farm size. Poverty 42. It was estimated that 25.2 per cent of population lived below the national poverty line in 2012.34 The same was reported as 26.6 per cent in 2006 and 26.3 per cent in 2009.35 Although the proportion of poor families has been fairly constant between 2006 and 2012, due to the growing population, the number of poor families has risen from 3.8 million in 2006 to 4.2 million in 2012.36 The proportion of Filipinos whose incomes fall below the food threshold (referred to as extreme poverty), was estimated at 10.5 per cent in the first semester of 2014.37 It has been noted that economic growth in the recent years has not been translated into

31 Asian Development Bank (ADB), Country Operations Business Plan: Philippines 2013-2015. 32 2013 national statistics, http://countrystat.psa.gov.ph/?cont=3 (accessed February 2016). 33 Philippines Statistics Authorit, Special Report - Highlights Of The 2012 Census Of Agriculture, 2012. 34 Philippines Development Plan 2011-2016, Mid-Term Update (2014) 35 2012 Full Year Official Poverty Statistics, National Statistical Coordination Board, 2013 36 2012 Full Year Official Poverty Statistics, National Statistical Coordination Board, 2013 37 Philippines Statistics Authority website. Accessed in February 2016.

19 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

poverty reduction in a significant way.38 Relative to other countries in the region, the Philippines is considered to be lagging behind in poverty reduction efforts.39 43. Furthermore, the most recent data on Gini coefficient (0.43) reveals high income inequality, suggesting that the economic growth has not been broad-based. This income disparity is one of the highest in Asia.40 Inequality exists also within the country, with over 60 per cent of economic growth concentrated in only three administrative regions (National Capital Region, Central Luzon and Calabarzon).41 44. Beyond income poverty, the rate of multidimensional poverty42 was estimated to be 28.2 per cent in 2008. Disaggregating this number, deprivation is mainly characterised by deprivation in services, followed by deprivation in health.43 45. Though a lower middle-income country, the Philippines has a food deficit, which is exacerbated by the combined effects of natural and man-made disasters and armed conflict. According to the 2015 Global Hunger Index, the food and nutrition situation in the Philippines is 'serious' despite steady improvements since the 1990s, positioning the country at 53 out of 104 countries. Prevalence of under- nutrition remains an issue of public concern.44 46. Poverty in rural areas is significantly higher (39.4 per cent) compared to urban areas (13.2 per cent), although urban poverty is also on the rise.45 Proportion of people living in poverty among fishermen and farmers has been consistently much higher than the average.46 Indigenous peoples, constituting 10-15 per cent of the country total population, are also considered to be among the poorest and most marginalised. In general, poverty is higher in regions where indigenous peoples are found or concentrated, in particular, Mindanao and Cordillera (in Luzon).47 47. The Philippines rural economy has been characterized by relatively poor performance of the agriculture sector. Factors include poorly developed infrastructure for transport48, a decline in the productivity and profitability of farming, smaller farm sizes, and degradation of natural resources. Access to improved agricultural technologies has been constrained by a weak extension system and high costs of inputs. Value chains for many commodities are under- developed, while product standards and quality systems have been ineffectively regulated. The result has been an under-investment by the private sector in agriculture. 48. Recurrent shocks and risks such as economic and frequent natural disasters, economic crisis and conflict are also factors for persistent poverty and inequality.

38 ADB, Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, Constraints, and Opportunities, 2009. World Bank, Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines (2015-2018), 2014. 39 With reference to the Millennium Development Goal of halving the poverty rate between 1990 and 2015, the Philippines has achieved a reduction of 38 per cent, compared to China of 80 per cent, Indonesia of 66 per cent, and Viet Nam of 73 per cent. 40 For example, 0.38 in Indonesia, 0.36 in Viet Nam, while 0.42 for China (UNDP, Human Development Report 2014). 41 Ibid. 42 The Multidimensional Policy Index (MPI) identifies poor and non-poor population based on the number of deprivations a person experiences with respect to education, health and living standards. The index, just like the Human Development Index (HDI), uses three broad dimensions of education, health and living standards. 43 National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, Mid-Term Update. 44 World Food Programme (WFP), Country Brief, March 2016. 45 WB 2014; ADB 2009. 46 39.2 per cent (fishermen) and 38.3 per cent (farmers) compared to the national average of 25.2 per cent in 2012. National Statistical Coordination Board, press release “Fishermen, Farmers and Children remain the poorest basic sectors”. 47 IFAD, Country Technical Note on Indigenous Peoples' Issues, 2005. 48 Particularly roads, port facilities and inter-island shipping. About half of rural villages in the country lack all-weather access to the main transport system. Out of the overall road network of 196,686 km, gravel roads make up about 52 per cent, while 31 per cent are earth roads. Only some 17 per cent of the 121,442 km local (barangay) road network is paved. According to the World Economic Forum, in 2010 the quality of the Philippines’ infrastructure ranked at the lower end among the ASEAN-5, especially as regards transport.

20 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

49. A study by the World Bank published in 200949 pointed out that while agriculture had significant roles to play in rural poverty reduction, its relative importance had reduced substantially over the past few decades and the relative role of non- agricultural and non-farm sectors grew. It suggested that the ‘pathways’ out of rural poverty diversified and that agricultural growth might not always be the primary engine of rural poverty reduction in some areas. 50. Despite persistent poverty, the Philippines has fared relatively well in Human Development Index (HDI), particularly in comparison to other Southeast Asian nations. It is classified as medium-HDI country and was ranked 117th out of 187 countries and territories in 2013.50 In general, the HDI for the Philippines registered steady increase over the years. The HDI of 0.660 in 2013 is above the average of 0.614 for countries in the medium human development group but below the average of 0.703 for countries in East Asia and the Pacific. 51. Gender-related indicators for the Philippines are overall favourable, although the ranking of the country varies greatly depending on the source and indicators. With regard to the Global Gender Gap, it was ranked 7th out of 145 countries (the region's highest).51 The 2014 Gender Development Index (GDI)52 gives the country a score of 0.977, indicating high equality in HDI achievements between women and men (0.649 and 0.664). The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI)53, which measures gender-based discrimination in social norms places the Philippines among countries with a medium level of discrimination in social institutions, ranked 58th out of 160 countries. 52. Despite relatively favourable situation and the gains achieved in the last years, women in the Philippines still face marginalization and situations of disadvantage, particularly in the world of work54: female participation in the labour market in 2014 is 51.1 percent compared to 79.7 for men.55 Policy, legislative and institutional framework 53. Over the past two decades, the Government of the Philippines has put poverty reduction as one of its highest priorities. The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016 (updated in 2014) adopts a framework of inclusive growth, with good governance and anticorruption as the overarching theme of each and every intervention. The strategic objectives of the PDP are: (i) attaining a sustained and high rate of economic growth that provides productive employment opportunities; (ii) equalizing access to development opportunities for all Filipinos; and (iii) implementing effective social safety nets to protect and enable those who do not have the capability to participate in the economic growth process. 54. The Plan sets out a strategy for the agriculture sector, with three distinct goals: (i) improved food security and increased rural incomes; (ii) increased sector resilience to climate change risks; and (iii) enhanced policy environment and governance. One of the priorities of the Government in the sector has been self-

49 World Bank. 2009. Technical Working Paper: Land Reform, Rural Development and Poverty in the Philippines: Revising the Agenda. 50 UNDP, Human Development Report, 2014. 51 The Global Gender Gap Index examines the gap between men and women in four fundamental categories: Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival and Political Empowerment. World Economic Forum, Global Gender Gap Report, 2015. The score is particularly high the categories of “educational attainment” and “health and survival”. The country was found less performing in the “economic participation and opportunity” category (e.g. in terms of labour force participation and estimated earned income) 52 In the 2014 HDR, a new measure was introduced, the GDI, based on the sex-disaggregated HDI, defined as a ratio of the female to the male HDI. The GDI measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health, education; and command over economic resources. The closer the ratio is to 1, the smaller the gap between women and men. 53 OECD, SIGI 2014. The SIGI covers five dimensions of discriminatory social institutions, spanning major socio- economic areas that affect women’s lives: discriminatory family code, restricted physical integrity, son bias, restricted resources and assets, and restricted civil liberties. The SIGI’s variables quantify discriminatory social institutions such as unequal inheritance rights, early marriage, violence against women, and unequal land and property rights. 54 International Labour Organization, Gender Equality in the Philippines, 2014. 55 UNDP, 2014.

21 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

sufficiency of food staples, in particular of rice.56 Based on the sector under- performance in the period 2011-2013, the 2014 revised PDP strategies for the sector particularly focus on increasing productivity, forward linkage with the industry and services sectors, resilience to risks, including climate change. 55. Key sectoral policy framework include the following (see also annex VI):  Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (CARP). Initiated in 1988, the CARP aims to redistribute private and public agricultural lands to farmers and farmworkers who are landless for an equitable land ownership. Agrarian reform beneficiaries have been among the main target group for IFAD support.  The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernisation Act is a comprehensive legislation that provides blueprint for the sector’s modernization and rural development.  The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) is a landmark legislation, which entered into force in 1997 to recognize, protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) was created to establish implementing mechanisms and appropriate funds. 56. As an overarching umbrella, the National Convergence Initiative (NCI) aims to rationalise and improve the provision of agricultural services to farmers and provide a more broad-based approach to reduce rural poverty. The Government is pursuing the NCI to maximize resources available and synchronize the initiatives of the three departments engaged in rural development: Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), DA and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 57. The Local Government Code was enacted in 1991 to "provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure".57 Administratively, the country is composed of local government units (LGUs) and one autonomous region, the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.58 LGUs are divided into three levels: provinces, cities and municipalities, and barangays, the smallest political unit. Each level of LGU is headed by an elected chief executive (governor, mayor, or barangay captain) and has a legislative body or Sanggunian (composed of an elected vice- governor/vice-mayor and council members). As of June 2015 the Philippines is organised in 81 provinces, 144 cities, 1,490 municipalities and 42,029 barangays.59 58. Under the Local Government Code, many functions in the agricultural sector have been devolved from the DA to LGUs, and similar devolution took place in other Government agencies. LGUs are responsible for expenditures which used to be those of the DA and other national agencies. For instance, the provision of extension services at the provincial and municipal level is currently under responsibility of LGUs. 59. The key technical departments involved in the agricultural and rural development are the DA (and its attached agencies60), DAR, DENR, and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The key national oversight agencies that IFAD has worked with are the National Economic Development Authority

56 Around 70 per cent of the operating expenses of the Department of Agriculture was for the crop-sector (between 2010 and 2012), and about 60 per cent of the operating expenses for the crop sub-sector was for rice programmes. (Aquino et al. 2013) 57 The Constitutions of the Republic of the Philippines. 58 This is an autonomous region of the Philippines, located in the Mindanao island group, which comprises five predominantly Muslim provinces and cities: the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi- Tawi, and the cities of Marawi and Lamitan. It was created by virtue of the Republic Act No. 6734 which signed into Law by the Late President Cory C. Aquino in 1989. 59 Philippines Statistics Authority. 60 Attached agencies include: Agricultural Credit Policy Council, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Cotton Development Administration, Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, Philippine Fiber Industry Development Authority Livestock Development Council, National Agricultural and Fishery Council, National Meat Inspection Service Philippine Carabao Center, Philippine Center for Postharvest Development & Mechanization, Regional Offices.

22 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

(NEDA), the Department of Finance, the Department of Budget Management, the Commission of Audit, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission. Governance and conflict 60. Corruption and transparency. Corruption is often cited as one of the major hindrances to development in the Philippines. The 2012 Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption indicated that the Philippines’s regime is only partially in compliance with the standards and principles of the Convention. While a couple of laws have been adopted to implement the Convention, many areas still remain to be regulated in more detail. Enforcement of existing legislation was also found insufficient.61 61. In 2015, the Philippines ranked 95th among 168 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index62 released by Berlin-based Transparency International. The country’s ranking in 2015 declined from 2014 (85th) but notably improved from 2010 (134th). In fact, in the Southeast Asian region, the Philippines's ranking is better than the majority of the countries.63 62. The Government has instituted reforms that are expected to allow for more transparency in its operations and in the use of public funds. Websites of Government agencies have been mandated to feature appropriated budget, public offerings, and project implementations status, for public access and scrutiny. The Department of Budget and Management has likewise built online infrastructure that provides citizens the opportunity to monitor the disbursement of public funds. 63. Fragility and Conflict. The Philippines has suffered ideological and territorial conflicts for the past 40 years, particularly from the Moro separatist movement in southern Philippines (Mindanao) and the communist insurgency more generalized throughout the country. 64. For over four decades, Mindanao has been the scene of armed conflict between the Philippine Government and the separatist groups known as the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Overall, although religious differences have partly shaped the conflict, the roots of the conflict have been the clash of interests in land and other natural resources.64 This long-running conflict has seen the destruction of private property and social infrastructure, resulting in the deterioration of living standards and the country’s highest level of poverty. Between 2000 and 2010, over 40 percent of families in Mindanao were displaced at least once as a result of the conflict.65 65. In 2012 the Government of the Philippines and MILF signed the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro66, which outlines the process of transition from the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao to a new Bangsamoro autonomous political entity. A peace agreement was further signed in 2014 (Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro), paving the way for the Bangsamoro autonomous political entity. 66. The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its New People’s Army (NPA) launched their armed struggle against the Philippine Government in 1968. The insurgency waged by the NPA over the years is reported to be one of the deadliest in the Philippines. The group is listed on the Foreign Terrorist Organisation list of

61 UN Convention Against Corruption Civil Society Review: Philippines, 2012. 62 The index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption around the world, scoring zero for most corrupt territories and 100 for least corrupt countries. It is a composite index, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. 63 The countries in the region ranked higher than the Philippines are: Malaysia (54th), Thailand (76th) and Indonesia (88th). Transparency International, corruption by county. http://www.transparency.org/country/%20- %20PHL_DataResearch_SurveysIndices#TLS 64 World Bank, The Mindanao Conflict in the Philippines: Roots, Costs, and Potential Peace Dividend, Paper 24, February 2005 65 World Food Programme. 66 Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro.

23 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

the US State Department. Talks between the CPP's political arm and the Government have been sporadic over the years. The most recent high-profile formal talks between the Government and the CPP were in Oslo in 2011. However, an agreement has yet to be reached. 67. Apart from the MNLF and the MILF, and the NPA, the peace and security in Mindanao, particularly in the Southern part, is complicated by the emergence of non-ideological armed groups. Prominent of these groups is the Abu Sayyaf Group, with leaders who split from the MNLF in early 1990s, that has engaged in kidnappings for ransom, bombings, assassinations and extortions. Official Development Assistance (ODA) 68. NEDA reported that the Philippines’ ODA portfolio in 2015 totalled US$15.71 billion (81 per cent in loans). The share of the agriculture, agrarian reform and natural resources sector in the ODA portfolio was 12 per cent for loans and 18 per cent in grants. IFAD share was 7.2 per cent of the loan portfolio in the agriculture, agrarian reform and natural resources sector and 5.3 per cent of the combined portfolio of loans and grants in the sector. Table 4 ODA portfolio (loans and grants) Number Amount Main development partners Amount – AARNR (US$ mill) AARNR sector - % sector of total loan (US$ mill) or grant

Loans 73 12 661 Japan (43%), World Bank (27%), ADB (25%) 1 522 12

Grants 460 3 051 USA (42%), Australia (19%), UN (12%), EU (8%) 550 18

Total -- 15.71 Japan (35%), World Bank (22%), ADB (21%), USA 2 072 13 (8%) Source: NEDA, 2015. ODA Portfolio Review Report. AARNR = Agriculture, agrarian reform and natural resource sector 69. In 2015, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) had the biggest share in the loans portfolio with US$5.39 billion for 25 loans, followed by the World Bank (US$3.38 billion) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB, US$3.17 billion). Total assistance from the World Bank, JICA, and ADB constitutes 94.3 percent (US$11.94 billion) of the loans portfolio. 70. Infrastructure sector has the largest share of the loans portfolio, followed by the social reform and community development, governance and institution development, agriculture, natural resources and agrarian reform, and industry, trade and tourism. 71. In terms of regional distribution (2015), the largest share of ODA targeted Luzon (45 per cent share of loans and grants), followed by Visayas (33 per cent) and Mindanao (22 per cent).67 The ODA share in Mindanao has seen an increase in the last years. Of the US$4.1 billion country’s ODA commitments in 2009 that were not nationwide or multiregional in coverage, Mindanao accounted for only 11 percent. ODA commitment was then heavily skewed in favour of Luzon with its share of 81 percent.68 72. In 2013, the Government adopted a policy of reviewing and appraising development project proposals based on technical and financial merits first, separate from consideration of possible lenders/development partners. It is only when ODA is determined to be the appropriate source of financing that the Government (Department of Finance, NEDA, Department of Budget Management and relevant technical agency) are to lead exploratory discussions with potential development partners having the required foreign expertise/technology, while also

67 NEDA, ODA Portfolio Review Report, 2015, Computed from table 2.11 on Regional Distribution. 68 NEDA, Mindanao Strategic Development Framework 2010-2020.

24 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

taking into consideration the development partners' capacity to meet target implementation schedules, and the terms and conditions in financing the project.69 B. IFAD's strategy and operations for the CSPE period Overview of IFAD operations 73. Figure below provides the timeline related to IFAD loans that are covered in this evaluation and key events. Figure 2 National events and portfolio timeline

74. Lending portfolio. The main sub-sectors and focus of seven loan-financed projects covered in this CSPE include: community development, agriculture, natural resource management, micro/rural finance and enterprise, irrigation development, rural infrastructure, marketing and value chain development. The latest project (FishCORAL) is the first entry in the fisheries sub-sector, even though there were some earlier projects with fisheries and coastal management activities as part of community based natural resource management. 75. Figure 3 shows the total project costs (US$401 million) by sub-component types70 and figure 4 only the IFAD financing (US$ 153 million) plus EU grant (for RaFPEP) by categories. A couple of points are noted. First, either as a total of project costs or IFAD financing, the proportion of cost for project management or recurrent costs is relatively small. Second, the large proportion of investment on NRM (figure 3) has been due to INREMP and especially the large co-financing by ADB. 76. Projects have been a mixture of area-based ones with multi-sectoral components to be driven by participatory development planning processes (in Cordillera and Mindanao), and those with wide geographical coverage with sectoral focus (e.g. microenterprise, rural finance, irrigation development). 77. According to the IFAD's performance-based allocation system, the resource envelope for the Philippines in the period 2016-2018 is US$79 million, the 6th in the Asia and the Pacific region in terms of the volume, after China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Viet Nam, and about 7.7 per cent of the total allocation for the region.

69 Government of the Philippines. Memorandum dated 17 February 2013 by the Investment Coordination Committee titled "Proposed Revisions on Investment Coordination Committee Review/Evaluation Procedures and Parameters (Evaluating Proposals Separate from Source of Financing)". 70 Based on the IFAD database – Grants and Investment Projects System (GRIPS). Sub-component types defined therein were further grouped by the CSPE team in order not to have too many types. For example, "irrigation infrastructure" and "irrigation management" were both labelled under "irrigation development".

25 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

The financing amount in the active portfolio increased significantly in 2015 with the approval of two projects with the IFAD financing of US$54 million. Figure 3 Figure 4 Total project financing by sub-component types IFAD financing by category types for seven for seven projects covered in CSPE projects covered in CSPE

Training, Inst. support, Community Others Credit extension, local cap bldg development Services, 2% 5% tech 1% 2% training, Civil works transfer Development studies 16% 3% funds 24% 8%

Irrigation Enterprise development deveopment 5% 5% Credit 10% Rural Fisheries infrastructure 6% Recurrent 24% cost Funding Input supply 4% facility 7% 2%

Goods - Management agricultural NRM /Co- inputs 22% Marketingordination 14% 7% Goods 3% 30%

Source: IFAD database Source: Financing agreements and amendments Note: Original loan/grant categories were grouped by the CSPE team 78. The IFAD portfolio in the Philippines in the initial period had a very high proportion of projects initiated by other major financiers (ADB or the World Bank71) compared to its portfolios in other countries in the region. Co-financing and supervision as cooperating institution by ADB or the World Bank used be the predominant modality of IFAD operations up to around 2000, but since then IFAD has had more projects without co-financing by other international financial institutions and has also engaged in direct supervision, in line with the shift in the corporate policy on supervision. In the active portfolio, INREMP is the only project with significant co- financing by ADB, which is also responsible for supervision. 79. The diversity of government agency partners in the loan-financed projects is a notable point in the IFAD portfolio in the Philippines. They include: DA, DAR, DTI, National Irrigation Administration (NIA), National Food Authority, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, NCIP, National Anti-Poverty Commission, NEDA, Department of Budget Management, Department of Finance and Commission of Audit. 80. Grants. IFAD has provided grants to co-finance loans and financed country-specific and regional grants which include the Philippines as benefitting country (see annex V for a list of grants under implementation after 2010). Among seven loan-financed projects approved after 2000, three included grants through IFAD as an integral part of the project design and financing agreements with the Government. Of these three, a sizable grant for RaFPEP came from the EU (US$13 million) at the time of food crisis in 2008. 81. The country specific grants not associated with loans since 2010 included a particular case approved by the Executive Board in 2014 in response to Typhoon Haiyan with an exceptionally large amount over US$4 million. Other country-

71 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, IBRD. Out of six projects approved before 1995, only one was initiated by IFAD.

26 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

specific grants include those to Government agencies72 as well as non- governmental organizations and academic institutions.73 82. Regional grants have included those with international agricultural research institutions (i.e. CIP, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IRRI74) relating to particular types of agricultural commodities or agricultural technologies, involving research and development, as well as region-wide support to strengthening farmer organizations (covering the Philippines and also with the main grant recipient located in the Philippines), grants to non-governmental organizations with a focus on remittances. IFAD country strategy in the Philippines 83. IFAD has prepared two COSOPs, the first one in 1999, and after an extended period, in 2009. The preparation of the 2009 COSOP was based on "a lengthy participatory process"75, which started in 2004. The 2009 COSOP was supposed to cover the period 2010-2014, but its mid-term review (MTR) in 2012 proposed an extension up to 2016 in order to have a "greater chance of achieving the strategic objectives" given the slow progress in the portfolio, as well as to align the COSOP completion date with the end of the PDP period (2011-1016). At the MTR, revisions were also made in the results management framework (see annex VIII). 84. The strategic thrusts in both COSOPs largely remained similar, in terms of the main target group (i.e. upland dwellers/indigenous peoples, agrarian reform beneficiaries, fisher folks), intervention sub-sectors/areas (natural resource management, micro/rural finance, microenterprise and agri-business development community development, coastal management), as well as cross-cutting issues identified (i.e. local capacity building, decentralization, resilience to shocks, etc.). But the geographic focus was somewhat broadened. The formats of these two COSOPs are different but key elements of both documents can be discerned and summarized in table 5. 85. The 2009 COSOP proposed a geographic focus on the 20 poorest provinces, that was largely in line with past projects and the anticipated pipeline. But in fact it was an impractical approach. Poverty assessments have a high degree of statistical error and the list of provinces in the poorest cluster change from year to year. This point is examined in more detail under relevance of the country strategy and programme in section VI.A.

72 For example, a grant of US$200,000 approved in 2010 to the National Economic and Development Authority for technical assistance on institutional strengthening of results-based monitoring and evaluation for Government agencies. 73 Including a grant managed by the IFAD Strategy and Knowledge Department to a national university to conduct an ex-post impact evaluation of RuMEPP. 74 CIP=International Potato Centre; ICRAF= World Agroforestry Centre; ICRISAT=International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics; IRRI=International Rice Research Institute 75 IFAD, Philippines 2009 COSOP.

27 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 5 Key elements of 1999 and 2009 COSOPs

COSOP 1999 COSOP 2009 "Key elements of IFAD strategy" (selected points) 1) Upland poor households in the 20 poorest  Focus on beneficiaries/areas which are jointly provinces – particularly those of indigenous peoples perceived by ‘partners’ as priorities. and agrarian reform beneficiaries – have improved access to land and water resources and gainfully use  Assess and prioritise the needs for ‘asset control’ these sustainably by potential beneficiaries. 2) Entrepreneurial poor in selected rural areas,  Monitor beneficiaries not only in terms of impact particularly in the Visayas, and northern and western, but susceptibility to external economic, social and southern and eastern, and central Mindanao, have environmental ‘shock’ both now and in the future. improved access to markets and rural financial  Identify and include the stakeholders in any services to improve the value chains of agribusiness proposed initiative from initial stages, including systems benefiting poor farmers, livestock producers, the roles in implementation. Complementarity of fishers, marginalized groups, women and rural resources and interventions of partners. entrepreneurs76  Focus on devolved/decentralised implementation 3) Selected marginalized and poor communities  Strengthen the capabilities of both service dependent on coastal resources in Bicol, eastern Strategic objectives (SOs) Strategic objectives delivery institutions at LGU level and the Visayas, northern Mindanao and the Autonomous beneficiaries Region for Muslim Mindanao have sustainable access to fisheries and other productive coastal resources,  Improving quality of life with comprehensive use sustainable management practices and diversify interventions livelihood opportunities to meet their basic needs, in particular food. Regions V (Bicol), VII (Panay Island); VIII (Samar and 20 poorest provinces: Abra, Agusan del Sur, Apayao, Leyte); X (Northern Mindanao) and XIII (Caraga) as Kalinga, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, specific regions for "future interventions within Maguindanao, Masbate, Misamis Occidental, Mt. "Mindanao and Visayas" Province, Nigros Oriental, Northern Samar, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Sarangani, Sulu, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, Tawi-tawi and Zamboanga

and coverage and del Norte (Regions covered: ARMM, CAR, IV-B, V, VI, Geographic focus Geographic VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIII) Section on "Main opportunities for project  Access to land for indigenous peoples (e.g. interventions and innovation" discusses mainly the certificate of ancestral domains) (SO1) opportunities for interventions and not for innovation.  Sustainable farming for upland areas (SO1) For the former, the main elements include the  following: Agri-business and value chains development for the poor, microfinance, microenterprise (SO2)  Support to strengthen the capacity of community  organizations and LGUs Coastal communities to be helped to identify ways of nurturing fragile environment maximise and  Enterprise and marketing development, diversify incomes. Coastal management (SO3) developing capacity of individuals and groups.  Skills training for enterprise development, Harness remittances for productive purposes development of private sector approaches,  improving the coping strategies for climate change development of saving facilities. and natural or man-made calamities Opportunities for innovation for Opportunities  Community-based resource and environment  Rural financial and weather insurance, community- management based participatory dev't approaches Findings of the consultation workshops identified  Indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups "upland groups (including indigenous peoples and such as woman-headed households and upland agrarian reform beneficiaries), coastal fisher folk and settlers landless groups" as the IFAD target group.  Agrarian reform beneficiaries  Small farmers  Artisanal coastal fishers

Target group Target  Landless labourers/farm workers  Micro and small-scale entrepreneurs  Local Government Units of poor communities  Policy reform in the financial sector "Policy linkages":  Roles of the private sector, state, local government Land tenure issues for IPs and agrarian reform and local communities, promoting the focus on beneficiaries; policy/regulatory environment for rural empowerment, decentralization and good microfinance and microenterprise promotion; Policy

dialogue local governance decentralization; remuneration for (environmental)  Rural "asset" control (including land tenure issues) services provided by the IPs and others

76 The wording for SO2 changed slightly in the COSOP MTR report (see also section VI.A). The table contains the original wording.

28 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

COSOP 1999 COSOP 2009 Country programme manager based in Rome supported by a country programme management facilitator/knowledge management officer, filled by a fixed-term consultant.

agement NEDA to co-supervise all IFAD projects (may also lead Country some supervision missions). IFAD to be represented programme man in each mission by staff or one or two internationally- recruited consultant. Partnerships with NGOs mentioned under section Government: NEDA, DoF, DA, DENR, DAR & DTI "Outreach and Partnership Possibilities with NGO, Donors: ADB, CIDA, EC, FAO, OFID, UNDP, USAID National and Local Initiative". No mention of other NGOs, academic, research organizations and the partnership opportunities, except for local private sector (only in vague terms) governments. Partnerships

No mention Annual country programme review meetings; annual knowledge and learning markets; regular updating of PBAS scores; conducting studies and workshops/seminars Communicating knowledge products through a supportive infrastructure comprising a national website Knowledge management Promoting knowledge sharing and learning culture within and among IFAD projects and partners Key points  The Philippines is among the fastest growing economies in Southeast Asia. Economic growth has been relatively strong and stable in recent years. With the GNI per capita of US$3,500 in 2014, the country is classified as a lower middle income country. However, the economic growth has not been translated into poverty reduction in a significant way. Poverty in rural areas is significantly higher than urban areas.  Despite declining share in the GDP, the agriculture sector remains important to the country's economy and rural livelihoods. The agriculture sector accounted for 11.3 per cent of the national GDP and nearly 30 per cent of employment.  The country is ranked relatively high for various gender-related indicators.  The Philippines is highly prone to devastating typhoons.  The country has faced conflict situations over four decades, especially in Mindanao with the Moro separatist movement, as well as the communist insurgency in different parts of the country.  With the presence of development partners with large resource envelopes, IFAD financing is a very minor part in the ODA in the Philippines (about 5 per cent in the agricultural sector).  IFAD has had COSOPs in 1999 and 2009. The coverage of the 2009 COSOP was extended to 2016 at the time of its MTR, in order to be aligned with the government's development plan (PDP 2011-2016). All three pipeline projects included in the 2009 COSOP have experienced a long gestation period.  The Philippines portfolio has been a mixture of area-based ones with multi-sectoral components based on participatory approach, and those with wide geographical coverage with sectoral focus. The main target group has included upland farmers, indigenous peoples, agrarian reform beneficiaries and fisher folks. Geographical coverage has been extensive between different projects.

29 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

III. The lending portfolio A. Project performance and rural poverty impact 86. This section provides assessment of the lending portfolio on the following evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, rural poverty impact and sustainability of benefits. Relevance 87. Relevance looks at the extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, institutional priorities and partner and donor policies. It also entails an assessment of project design and coherence in achieving its objectives. 88. The projects are generally well aligned with the Philippines Medium Term Development Plan 2004-10 and are similarly coherent with the PDP 2011- 16. Project thrusts respond to all three goals of the PDP for the agricultural and fisheries sector, comprising food security and rural incomes, resilience to climate change and improvements to the policy environment and sector governance. In particular, the projects reflect IFAD’s responsiveness to national policies under the Government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (CARP 1988 & 2009), Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA-1997), and Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (1997). 89. The projects in general also fit well with the outcome objectives of IFAD’s Strategic Frameworks (2007-10 and 2011-15), specifically a focus on increased incomes and food security together with strengthened in-country capacities though provision for policy dialogue, decentralization of public sector institutions, strengthened organizations and institutions, and enhanced private sector capacity and investment. In some respects the projects predate new directions that emerged in the 2011-15 Strategic Framework, especially for integration of poor rural people within value chains and a more explicit emphasis promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment as one of the principles of engagement, both of which are significant features of the portfolio. The one area highlighted in the 2011-15 framework that is absent from the projects in the Philippines is attention to creating viable opportunities for rural youth. In fact youth have been involved in projects and could have been more explicitly identified in planning documents. 90. RaFPEP stands out in the portfolio in terms of strategic direction. This "programme" was conceived and designed "outside" the both 1999 and 2009 COSOPs77, in response to the food price crisis and in support of the Government's Rice Self-Sufficiency Plan 2009-2010 with two distinct and somewhat disconnected sub-projects: the Rapid Seed Supply Financing Project (RaSSFiP) for the emergency phase of one year (2009) followed by the Irrigated Rice Production Enhancement Project (IRPEP) for the developmental phase of 6 years. See box 1. Box 1 RaFPEP – an ambitious exception The programme was a hybrid combining emergency assistance with a development project. The following points are highlighted with respect to the design and the review process. First, it packaged a response to soaring food prices by supplying seeds rapidly to increase paddy production, with a medium-term irrigation rehabilitation effort. Second, the financial package was unusual: more than 85 per cent of the IFAD loan and the EU grant were allocated for RaSSFiP as "an urgent relief to fund a portion of the Government’s seed acquisition and distribution programme for the dry season of 2009" (RaFPEP appraisal report). Third, IFAD and Government fast-tracked the processing in a manner that was unprecedented in the portfolio history.

77 RaFPEP was designed and approved in 2008, i.e. before the later COSOP was approved in 2009. A nominal mention of possible support to emergency situation was added to the 2009 COSOP to retrofit the RaFPEP, rather than RaFPEP conceptualization having been driven by a country strategy.

30 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Both RaSSFiP and IRPEP were in line with the government's priority: Rice Self-Sufficiency Plan, with improved inputs and irrigation as a means – but how about the alignment with IFAD's strategy? From a broad viewpoint, "increasing paddy production and productivity" would be considered to be in line with IFAD's strategy at corporate and country levels. But with regard to the RaSSFiP objective of "securing the supply of paddy seeds for communal irrigation systems (CIS) in Regions 5,6,8 and 10, specifically for the 2009 dry season cropping", the fit of such short-term emergency support with the IFAD's mandate, strategy and its business model is less clear. The only relevant reference in the 2009 COSOP indicates (in the section of "opportunities for innovation") that "while IFAD is not an emergency agency, it can, in case of need, offer some urgent assistance similar to the 2008 RaFPEP, which responded to the soaring food prices that year", but it is not clear how this is considered to be an opportunity for innovation. According to the loan negotiation minutes, the Government would have been agreeable to IFAD's financing only RaSSFiP, but financing only short-term seed supply would have been difficult for IFAD to justify. The design envisaged that the IFAD financing for RaSSFiP would be "monetized" for a longer-term investment in CIS under IRPEP, which apparently was receiving less attention at the time than national irrigation systems.78 Consequently, it was only a fraction (less than 10 per cent) of the IFAD financing allocated for IRPEP and the Government was to finance about 80 per cent of the IRPEP project cost. At the same time, despite the emphasis on IFAD's role and emphasis on providing "a bridge between an emergency response and medium- to long-term solutions that build the resilience of poor populations to such crises", the linkage between RaSSFiP and IRPEP was not clear. In 2008, the world was alerted by the soaring food prices. The processing of RaFPEP at IFAD was rushed: 6 months from the inception (June 2008) to the board approval (December 2008) without a quality enhancement review. Such speedy process was based on the intention to disburse the bulk of funds by January 2009 to be in time for the planting season and reflected the sense of urgency in the international community. The record on the quality assurance review, conducted towards the end of the design process, shows that at that point, there were uncertainties about the quality of the proposed programme, especially the RaSSFiP part, but based on the sense of urgency, the quality assurance meeting concluded that the need to respond to the crisis urgently outweighed the concerns. It is worthwhile noting that the independent evaluation of the World Bank Group's response to the global food crisis79 had a similar finding that fast processing had a cost in terms of design quality, implementation, and results in some cases. In the end, the RaSSFiP's intention of speedy disbursement, seed procurement and distribution did not materialize. Reference: 1999 and 2009 COSOPs; RaFPEP design documents; RaFPEP quality assurance meeting minutes and reviewer's note; IFAD’s response to the food price increases (REPL.VIII/3/R.4, July 2008)

91. The geographical coverage in the projects has tended to be wide spread. The selection of project areas was driven by a mixture of the Government's priority on the "poorest provinces" (as also stated in the 2009 COSOP) and the nature of interventions (e.g. based on watersheds for INREMP, or bays for FishCORAL). Annex IX shows the provincial coverages by different projects against the lists of "20 poorest provinces" at different points in time. For example, RuMEPP covered 19 provinces in 5 regions for the core programme activities, and even beyond 19 provinces for the credit component. INREMP works in 9 provinces in 4 regions. Even in CHARMP2 with seemingly a more confined project area, the geographical coverage is quite large, across the whole CAR and mainly in upland remote areas. The inevitable consequences are: (i) relatively low intensity of investment per households and area80; and (ii) possible challenges in implementation, management, monitoring and supervision of project activities.

78 A study by Arlene Inocencio et al. indicated that public investment on irrigation seems to have fluctuated and and there has been a resurgence of spending on CIS in late 2000. 79 World Bank Independent Evaluation Group 2013. An Evaluation of the World Bank Group Response. 80 For example, in RuMEPP, over 70 per cent of the project cost was for the credit funds. With the "reflows" of funds, 61 per cent was disbursed for the credit operations outside the core 19 provinces. In the case of RaFPEP-RaSSFiP, majority of the beneficiary households received only certified seeds. In CHARMP2 covering 170 barangays, an analysis of the available data on investment per barangay and population data indicates that for almost 40 per cent of the

31 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

92. The target group, the needs, constraints and opportunities of different groups, and differentiated strategy for reaching them were not always clearly identified. For example, "farmers on CIS" were treated the same way in RaFPEP-IRPEP design, without any discussion on the differentiation between land owners, tenants and sharecroppers on irrigation schemes. It would have been important to have clarity on the target group and intended beneficiaries, even if all "water users" on supported schemes would benefit. Also, different RaFPEP basic documents provide different descriptions of the target group.81 For RuMEPP, there was lack of clarity on the main target group in the project documents, whether the focus was to be more on poorer and lower end of the wide scale of those who are defined as "microenterprise", or on larger microenterprises, or both. Either case would have required tailored targeting strategies. In CHARMP2, the key approach to targeting was through selection of poor municipalities and then barangays. Most of the project activities were to be based on community-level participatory planning, and investments such as rural infrastructure would benefit the broad communities. At the same time, the consideration on how to ensure that planned activities and implementation (including working through groups) would be as inclusive as possible was not clearly reflected in the design. 93. Nonetheless, there has been a strong focus on gender mainstreaming in the projects. Even when there was little reflection on gender issues in design (e.g. RuMEPP, RaFPEP), the proposed project activities have been generally highly relevant to women with potential to contribute to their social and economic empowerment (e.g. microenterprise promotion in RuMEPP, with types of enterprises that are more in women's domains). In the RaFPEP design, the only reference in the design was on women's membership in irrigators associations and their management positions, but a gender strategy and relevant activities were developed by the implementers during the course of implementation. 94. Attention on youth, increasingly recognized as important part of the target group of IFAD, can be seen only in recent project designs, i.e. CONVERGE and FishCORAL, but not in previous projects. In part this may reflect the long lead time between initial project concept and subsequent preparation and appraisal vis- à-vis increased focus on this issue at IFAD in recent years as observed in the IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-2015 (see paragraph 89). For example, the CONVERGE design makes a specific reference to under-employed or unemployed rural youth who work as agricultural or other wage labourers, as a target group. 95. The overall thrusts of project activities are judged to be relevant to the needs of the rural poor. They have included strengthening of their institutions, enhancing livelihood opportunities through capacity building and access to funding, improving rural infrastructure, strengthening natural resource management and land tenure, providing agricultural advisory services, enhancing technical and business skills of beneficiaries, and access to finance and markets. NMCIREMP also supported social sector services, which included training of community health workers and education. 96. Investment in rural infrastructure is considered particularly relevant by the beneficiary communities. Sub-projects are identified mainly through participatory process and have included farm-to-market roads, footbridges, footpaths, potable water systems, community irrigation systems, day care centers

barangays covered, an average investment per household comes to less than PHP20,000, though it should be noted that the project is still ongoing (though reaching the completion soon) and the final figures are likely to change. 81 The financing agreement indicated the target group as "primarily farm families in the programme area". The president report to the Board stated "poor paddy farmers" and that they would be "selected based on their poverty levels, exposure to natural calamities, and the likelihood of them encountering seed deficit for the 2009 wet season". The appraisal report does not have any information on the target group nor targeting approach, except for specifying the regions.

32 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

and multi-purpose warehouses. In CHARMP2, from the design stage, a decision was made not to invest in any new roads in order to avoid negative environmental impact in fragile areas.82 Access to markets and services was to be supported also by non-road infrastructure. At the same time, there is also a view from some LGUs that a total avoidance of opening up of new roads made it difficult or impossible for them to direct CHARMP2 investments to remote and isolated barangays that are accessible only on foot. 97. Most projects include support for formation or strengthening of organizations of beneficiaries, but their different roles and purposes are not always clarified. These groups and organizations can be in broadly in two categories/levels: larger and more formal ones that may be generally termed as "people's organizations" (see box 2) many of which may have already existed, and smaller and informal ones that were to serve in most cases specifically for the respective projects. As for the latter, projects have promoted the formation of small groups for common enterprise activities: self-help groups (SHGs) in NMCIREMP or livelihood interest groups (LIGs) in CHARMP2. SHGs/LIGs typically have the membership of 20-25 and are provided with project funds for their members to undertake a range of income generating activities. Box 2 Civil society organizations, people's organizations The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, following the 1986 People Power Revolution which ousted then President Ferdinand Marcos, clearly recognizes participation and empowerment, including the important role of civil society organizations. For example, its Article XIII, Section 15 provides “The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means". People's organizations "are membership organizations representing marginalized groups and often organized based on sector, issue, or geographical area". In some cases, the term "people's organizations" can be used in a broad manner and may also include cooperatives, for example. It is not mandatory for such organizations to register with the Government, but only registered organizations gain legal status that permits them to enter into contracts and open a bank account. There are four government agencies that provide primary registration, which gives a legal or juridical personality to a civil society organization: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Cooperative Development Authority, the Department of Labour and Employment, and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. In addition to their primary registration with these agencies, civil society organizations wishing to take on particular activities need secondary registration or licenses or permits from other government agencies.

Source: Asian Development Bank. 2013. Civil Society Briefs - Philippines

98. The roles of groups like SHGs/LIGs and what should be expected from them have not been made clear. SHGs/LIGs serve as a conduit to channel project support (finance and other services/training). Some of these small groups already existed, some are simply "sub-groups" within larger people's organizations, some are newly put together. In the project designs and/or during implementation, the expectation has been generated that these small groups would continue operating as (or should grow into) collective enterprises. While no doubt some of them may sustain collective enterprise activities beyond the project period, there has not been careful examination of the continued relevance of such groups established or supported initially mainly as a channel for project service delivery, once the project is completed. Nor is there any reflection or data on the likely or acceptable levels of attrition, which can lead to unrealistically high assumptions about potential benefits.

82 CHARMP2 appraisal report. June 2008.

33 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

99. On the other hand, the relevance of organizations with clear roles, responsibilities and status is evident. This is clearly a case with irrigators' associations (IAs) and the relevance of supporting them as a conduit for empowering the beneficiaries. 100. Relevance of design and implementation arrangements for value chain development is still to be proven. In one of the latest projects CONVERGE, agrarian reform community clusters are expected to prepare participatory value chain proposals to be managed by individuals or groups under the lead implementing agency DAR. There are some uncertainties on the capacity of public agencies (DAR as well as other collaborating agencies) to implement a project requiring commercial orientation such as CONVERGE and the capacity of peoples' organizations – existing, revitalized or new – to be effectively engaged with the private sector. On the other hand, DAR also has important roles and responsibilities to oversee and monitor private sector investment and contractual arrangements with agrarian reform communities to ensure transparency and accountability for welfare of beneficiaries. The CHARMP2 design included value chain support but there were some overlaps and confusion between components/sub-components and sequencing of activities.83 101. Support to rural/microfinance has been one of the key elements in the portfolio, but with weaknesses in design. RuMEPP was designed with a bulk of project funds allocated for credit lines to MFIs through the wholesale lender (Small Business Corporation). There were a number of assumptions underlying the design which did not hold true, including the assumption that there would be MFIs in the project provinces with interest and capacity to channel credits to microenterprises utilizing the project-sponsored credit funds and that the main constraint for MFIs was the shortage of liquidity. There was insufficient situation analysis and rationale for allocating a large proportion of the project funds for credit lines in the design. 102. In both NMCIREMP and CHARMP2, the design included a small allocation for credit funds, but not much detail was provided in the design. The CHARMP2 design was not clear on the rationale of the proposed sub-component activities and was left vague on how it should be implemented.84 In the first year of implementation, IFAD financed a study "to determine the credit status and needs of the target communities" intended "to determine how to proceed with the sub-component on micro-finance and income generating activities" as part of its implementation support. In the case of NMCIREMP, the design made it explicit that the allocation for a "credit reserve fund" was provisional and was to be confirmed for operations after the third year of the project, based on a review of the credit situation in the project area.85 103. The relevance of the project design elements supporting the management of common property resources is still to be demonstrated. Two of the three recent projects have a strong emphasis on natural resource management: watershed (INREMP) and coastal areas (FishCORAL). The projects include support for sustainable livelihoods and infrastructure development which mirror designs from other projects and are likely to be of interest to the target group. But for the other components dealing with management of common property resources,

83 CHARMP2 mid-term review report (2012). 84 The CHARMP2 design envisaged that the project would follow a similar approach as RuMEPP in terms of disbursing the funds as wholesale loans through a government financial institution, but left the possible options of such financial institutions vague. There is also little indication that the design process undertook a basic situation analysis regarding the presence and profiles of potential MFIs. 85 In NMCIREMP, the credit funds were converted to grants as the second level of "poverty alleviation fund" (PAF). PAF was set up in each project municipality to assist resource-poor households and indigenous people through SHGs with a small amount of grants disbursed to SHGs. The initial allocation for "credit reserve fund" was converted to what was termed as "PAF2" to make available larger amount of grants for commercial/enterprise activities. In CHARMP2, the funds were converted to a "livelihoods assistance fund" following the example of PAF under NMCIREMP.

34 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

design documents do not provide sufficient evidence of farmers’ willingness to participate and the expected benefits. 104. Project design supporting land titling for indigenous peoples needs a careful reflection, taking into consideration different contexts, as well as bearing in mind the challenges with coordination of different agencies86 and harmonization of different legislations. Working with indigenous peoples, including the issue of ancestral land rights has been an important element in IFAD’s portfolio, specifically in NMCIREMP, the predecessor project of CHARMP2 (Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project, CHARM1) and CHARMP2. As found in the previous project evaluations,87 the support to the development of ancestral domain sustainable development and protection plan (ADSDPPs) and the issuance of certificate of ancestral domain title (CADTs) by both NMCIREMP and CHARM1 was considered to be a success, and consequently it was decided CHARMP2 would continue this in collaboration with NCIP. 105. The target set in the CHARMP2 design (18 CADTs) was overly ambitious. In addition, the CSPE team's discussion in CAR highlighted that some indigenous peoples feel that obtaining CADTs was unnecessary as there had been a general acceptance of domains between different groups. Attempts to draw formal delineation provoked pressures to claim disputed border areas and led to an impasse in some instances. Such sentiment emerging in CAR reflects different situations of indigenous peoples in different parts of the country. More than ninety per cent of the population in CAR is indigenous peoples and questions of land tenure often concern competing claims between different groups. In Northern Mindanao they are a minority, are clustered in smaller communities and face competition over land from external parties (e.g. mining companies). 106. Even within CAR, there are differences between different groups of indigenous peoples, for example, in terms of the extent of authority of tribal leaderships and traditional practices. The relevance of land tenure security to improving their well- being was not sufficiently analyzed in the CHARMP2 design even though the approach is of direct relevance to IPRA. The term "quality of life" was used in CHARMP2 project documents. Most likely this term was introduced based on the recommendation by the interim evaluation of CHARM1 and the technical review committee comments, but there was little elaboration on what it actually means and how to measure the progress. 107. While IFAD's aspiration to provide support in emergency situations in the face of a call by the international community and governments is well- acknowledged, a question is raised on what IFAD is actually best-placed to do and how. There were three emergency situations IFAD sought to respond to: the food crisis in 2008; typhoon Sendong in 2011; and typhoon Haiyan in 2013. RaFPEP-RaSSFiP was a response to the food crisis in 2008 (see box 1 earlier). After the typhoon Sendong, IFAD processed a top-up financing for RaFPEP-IRPEP, which was eventually cancelled.88 Finally, as a response to typhoon Haiyan, IFAD provided a grant of over US$4 million to finance seeds and fertilizer. This grant will be discussed in the section on non-lending activities. 108. As for RaFPEP-RaSSFiP, the whole sub-project was about distributing seeds (803,750 bags with the value of about US$25 million with IFAD/EU funding). The IFAD corporate document on its response to the 2008 food crisis89 indicated that

86 In particular, DENR, NCIP, DAR and Land Registration Authority under the Department of Justice. 87 IFAD 2007. Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project completion evaluation; IFAD 2009. Northern Mindanao Community Initiative and Resource Management Project project performance assessment. 88 The top-up financing consisted of SDR1.53 million in loan and SDR0.85 million in grant, approved by in November 2012. This was intended to finance the rehabilitation of key irrigation systems damaged by the typhoon in one of the RaFPEP-IRPEP provinces, but eventually this financing was cancelled in 2014 as the Government funded the activities (Communication by the Department of Agriculture to IFAD dated 31 July 2014). 89 IFAD response to the food price increases (July 2008). REPL.VIII/3/R.4

35 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

IFAD was to "assist its target group in building resilience to food price increases" through short, medium and long-term support, thus emphasising the IFAD's role with a long-term perspective, rather than emergency relief.90 However, the linkage between RaSSFiP (short-term) and IRPEP (long-term) was not clear or at best minimal: they were two largely unrelated projects financed by one loan put under a "programme". 109. Some project designs were complex or under-designed and imposed challenges on the implementers in unpacking them. At one level, there are multitude of small activities and sub-components, especially in NMCIREMP and CHARMP2,91 although the NMCIREMP PPA did not consider this as an issue. In area- based community development projects like NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 mainly implemented through LGUs, such multi-faceted activities could still be feasible, but in CHARMP2, there were a number of activities/sub-components that were mentioned in the design without adequate guidance, for example, agribusiness/value chain. INREMP design is considered to be technical and complex, and in addition, involves many financiers, which apparently puts challenges on the implementers, especially in terms of financial management. 110. Relevance assessment summary. Overall, the portfolio is assessed to be moderately satisfactory (4) for relevance. IFAD projects fit with national policies and IFAD strategy and focus, and are generally responsive to the needs of the rural poor. Gender mainstreaming in project has been strong, even when it was not pronounced in the design. On the other hand, there have been some weaknesses in design, including insufficient reflection on the target group and targeting approach, under-design and over-assumptions, as well as the response to emergency. The extensive use of group formation for enterprise activities requires further reflection. Effectiveness 111. The effectiveness criterion assesses the extent to which the interventions have met (or are expected to meet) their objectives, taking into account their relative importance. The assessment in this section focuses on the immediate outcomes of the projects and the initial effects, whereas broader and longer-term effects will be discussed in a later section on rural poverty impact. Four projects (NMCIREMP, RuMEPP, RaFPEP and CHARMP2) are covered here and the assessment takes into consideration design issues, as well as changes in the overall context which affected or are likely to affect implementation and results. 112. Based on the stated project objectives, expected outcomes and interventions (see annex X), the objectives of the portfolio under review are clustered into eight areas (table 6). The analysis starts by looking at the data on outreach, or participation by targeted beneficiaries, then continues with the progress towards objectives.

90 The document indicated that, as a short-term measures, its support is intended to "enable poor farmers to access essential inputs such as seeds and fertilizer, allowing them not only to prepare for the coming cropping season but also to establish a basis for sustained increases in production in subsequent seasons" and that such support should be "considered as distinct from emergency relief, food aid or social safety nets". 91 For example, one of the five project components of CHARMP2 on "agribusiness development, and promotion of income-generating activities" include numerous small activities including value chain development, organic farming, support services, microfinance, and income generating activities. The quality enhancement meeting at IFAD also commented on the complexity by pointing out numerous (16) sub-components, but the comparison of the formulation and appraisal reports does not seem to indicate much change, except that the term "sub-component" was dropped.

36 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 6 Key areas of objectives of IFAD-supported interventions in the Philippines NMCIREMP RuMEPP RaFPEP- RaFPEP- CHARMP2 RaSSFiP IRPEP

Enhanced participation of communities in *** * *** development processes, strengthened community-level institutions

Improved security over land, territories and *** *** resources by indigenous peoples

Improved natural resource management practices *** * ***

Access to and adoption of improved means and * ** *** ** technologies for agricultural production

Better linkages with markets for agricultural * * ** produce

Increased opportunities for microenterprise *** *** * *** development, livelihoods diversification and rural employment

Better access to financial services * *** *

Improved rural infrastructure for better access to *** * *** markets and services *** = key elements/focus with specific and direct mention in the project objectives, component objectives and/or outcomes; **= not direct and explicit, but related elements observed in project descriptions to a reasonable extent; *= not direct and explicit, but related elements observed in project descriptions only to a minor extent 113. Outreach. An analysis of data on the number of beneficiaries or outreach has proved to be challenging. There are inconsistencies in the figures between different reports92 due to a number of factors including: (i) double-counting of the same beneficiaries under different activities; (ii) difficulties in defining and recording direct or indirect beneficiaries (CHARMP2, RuMEPP); and (iii) differences in interpretation of how beneficiaries are to be calculated. Bearing in mind these limitations, table 7 is presented to give a sense of the outreach in the portfolio. Actual achievements could vary owing to inconsistent definitions and so would the intensity of support, even within the same project. 114. RaFPEP-RaSSFiP is an outlier in the sense that the beneficiaries under this sub- project are those who received certified rice seeds, hence, with minimum investments. The planned number of beneficiaries of over 1 million was based on the availability of funds.93 115. It should be cautioned, however, that the discussion on the number of beneficiaries as such could be anyway rather superficial since the intensity of support varies greatly, ranging from only one-off access to certified seeds at subsidized price (50 per cent subsidy and 1.67 bags per beneficiary on average) under RaSSFiP to higher unit cost per beneficiary in the case of RaFPEP-IRPEP (estimated to be US$1,146). RuMEPP "beneficiaries" also included those borrowers outside the core programme provinces.

92 For example, for CHARMP2, the design document for additional financing proposed in early 2016 indicated the number of beneficiaries/households reached 45,000 households directly, and about 96,166 households (or 0.48 million beneficiaries) indirectly. The March 2015 supervision mission reported that the project had reached "about 40,000 additional households in 2014" and a total of 70,000 households since project start. 93 It was first estimated that with the funds available from IFAD/EU (a total of about US$25 million), it was possible to purchase and distribute 803,750 bags of certified seeds. Subsequently, based on the average size of the paddy cultivation (about 0.72 ha) and the requirement of one seed bag (40 kg) per hectare, it was estimated that 1,116,319 persons would receive the seeds.

37 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 7 Outreach: number of planned and actual number of beneficiaries Planned No of beneficiaries Target group per design document number of reported or [CSPE comment] beneficiaries estimated

Completed

NMCIREMP 58,500 HH 47,131 HH (direct) Indigenous peoples, marginal fishing families, agrarian 8,776 HH (indirect) reform beneficiary communities, upland dwellers and landless workers

RuMEPP 200,000 (direct Direct: 74,683 New and expanding microenterprise with assets worth less and indirect) Indirect: not clear than PHP 3 million and with one to nine employees ["Indirect" would include those who got job opportunities but inconsistencies in the data on jobs created]

RaFPEP-IRPEP 14,616 14,812 IAs working on not less than 5,000 ha of CISs*

RaFPEP-RaSSFiP 1,116,319 307,027** Poor paddy farmers* [Very low investment per beneficiary (seed distribution).]

Not completed

CHARMP2 12,530 45,000 Primarily poor indigenous peoples in the upland mountain areas Source: Appraisal reports for the target figures; NMCIREMP PCR and PPA; RuMEPP PCR and PPE; progress reports, supervision mission reports; CHARMP2 additional financing design document * The financing agreement for RaFPEP only indicated "primarily farm families in the programme area" as the target group, with no reference to poverty level. ** According to the Terminal Report on the Special Audit on RaSSFiP by the Commission of Audit (September 2011). The report "Assessment of RaSSFiP" prepared by the Department of Agriculture in March 2012 reported the number of farmer beneficiaries for each of the three planting seasons and these add up to 411,990, but the report did not make it clear whether the some farmer-beneficiaries were provided with seeds more than once.

116. Targeting. While gender-disaggregated data are well recorded across the projects, there has not been consistent attention to differences within the overall target group. For example, in RaFPEP-IRPEP has a relatively good record of the number of beneficiaries and gender, but there has been no discussion in design nor supervision on who are actually cultivating the land and who are benefiting to what extent from the improved production (e.g. owner-cultivators, tenants, or sharecroppers/ caretakers, often with different poverty status). This is despite the fact that most, if not all, IAs do have records on tenancy status. As for RuMEPP, the project had a record of the levels of microenterprises depending on the asset size, but the definition of "existing", "new" or "potential" microenterprises was not clear and the indicator such as "first time borrowers" was not tracked. 117. According to the NMCIREMP PPA, the effective arrangement to reach the vulnerable was through inclusiveness by community institutions rather than by singling them out. The PPA noted that overall the community institutions and SHGs effectively reached a majority of very poor households. In CHARMP2, beneficiaries and staff in the field the CSPE team interacted with seemed to hold a view that poverty was widespread in the whole community and it was appropriate that majority of community members benefit from various activities in the "menu". At the same time, there was an observation by a CHARMP2 supervision mission in 2015 that more project resources have been directed to relatively better-off provinces (e.g. Benguet) and municipalities (3rd, 4th and 5th class than 6th class)94, even though the project design had indicated that 5th and 6th class municipalities would be priorities. The same supervision mission noted that the project was going to expand support, with additional/supplementary financing in mind, to other provinces which might have received less support up to that point.

94 CHARMP2 supervision mission report, February-March 2015.

38 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

118. Community participation and institutions. The portfolio demonstrates good achievements in enhancing community participation. Based on the NMCIREMP PPA and based on the CSPE team's discussions in the field, this was achieved by the participatory approach strongly promoted by the projects, coupled with funds made available for investment activities. 119. Enhanced representation of indigenous peoples in development processes was highlighted as one of the significant achievements in NMCIREMP. In northern Mindanao where indigenous peoples are a minority unlike CAR, NMCIREMP effectively supported their representation and membership of tribal leaders in LGU development councils and special bodies.95 Box 3 Participatory planning process in NMCIREMP and CHARMP2

Participatory approach is often an important element in IFAD-supported projects and has been so particularly in NMCIREMP and CHARMP2. Both projects were of multi-sectoral nature and their planning and implementation processes hinged on participatory processes and community-driven needs identification (while largely menu-based), working closely with respective LGUs. Considerable efforts and time were invested to make the participatory approach work, with contracted service providers/NGOs (NMCIREMP and initial stage of CHARMP2) and directly contracted field staff (later stage of CHARMP2). At barangay level, facilitators worked with community groups to prepare development plans. This approach was taken to a greater depth in CHARMP2 where community facilitators were resident at community level for up to two years to help develop Participatory Project Investment Plans (PPIPs) which defined the locations and nature of activities under the project. In CHARMP2, many of these facilitators were from the areas, with understanding of the local context and proficiency in the local language. The latter is important, especially in CAR where different groups of indigenous peoples speak different languages. Source: NMCIREMP PPA, CSPE team interviews 120. Often the projects have supported the strengthening or establishment of different types of groups of beneficiaries. See table 8 for description of these groups and the outputs reported. "Community institutions" (in NMCIREMP) or "people's organizations" tend to be larger and more representative of community members in the area with legal status. They have also served as a conduit between LGUs and communities in participatory planning process. SHGs/LIGs in NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 are similar and small special interest groups, mostly informal. The functioning of these groups is discussed in relevant sections below.

95 NMCIREMP PPA.

39 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 8 Different types of community-level groups supported in IFAD portfolio Types of groups and roles/purposes in projects Number Male Female Total Average of members membership groups

NMCIREMP

"Community institutions": Participate in planning, identify 226 investments and undertake livelihood activities. Including cooperatives, IAs, tribal associations, among others. 18.053 21,424 39,477 "Self-help groups (SHGs)", to undertake own development activities. Small grant funds channelled to 841 SHGs.96

CHARMP2 40,594

People's organization – reforestation 150 5,445 4,100 9,545 63.3

Peoples' organization – agro-forestry 162 2,081 3,161 5,242 32.4

Livelihoods interest groups (LIGs): access project funds 644 6,241 10,956 17,197 26.7 (Livelihoods Assistance Fund) to engage in productive activities

IAs: manage and maintain CISs 36 3,192 2,444 5,636 156.6

Barangay water and sanitation association (BAWASA): 41 2,057 917 2,974 72.5 manage and maintain domestic water supply systems

RaFPEP-IRPEP

IAs: manage and maintain CISs 112 3,523 8,624 12,147 108

121. Land tenure security for indigenous peoples. The performance in this regard in the portfolio has varied. The cornerstone of the support is the preparation of ADSDPPs, obtaining certificates of ancestral domain claims (CADCs) and the issuance of CADTs. ADSDPPs are seen as a tool for understanding indigenous management systems and expected to be used for further investment planning to be incorporated into LGU development plans and budgets. 122. In northern Mindanao, under NMCIREMP, 14 ADSDPPs were developed and 14 CADTs issued with a total land area of about 300,000 ha that benefitted 12,035 households. In CAR, CHARMP2 intended to follow and expand an initial successful pilot under CHARM1 (implemented between 1996 and 2004, not covered in this CSPE), but this has proved to be an overly challenging mission (see box 4). Box 4 Planning for ancestral domain titles in CHARMP2

In 1997, the Philippine legislature passed a landmark legislation, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act No. 8371, a law that recognized the rights of indigenous cultural communities in the country over their ancestral domains and to decide priorities for its development and use. The IPRA was a realization of one of the more progressive provision of the 1987 Philippine constitution recognizing the ownership rights of over 11 million indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands which that their they have occupied since “time immemorial”. Under IPRA, ancestral lands rights are considered ‘private rights’ of ownership by indigenous peoples and are issued certificated of ancestral domain titles (CADTs) for communal lands and certificates of ancestral land titles (CALTs) for individual ancestral lands. The issuance of these titles provides formal protection of ownership of indigenous peoples' ancestral lands. IPRA also recognizes their right to self-determination over their ancestral lands by giving them the right to decide on the utilisation and development of

96 PPA reported that some SHGs were made up only of community institution members, others of poorer community members not members of a community institution, others a mix of community institution members and non-members. Involves regular meeting, savings, planning, decision-making and collective poverty reduction initiatives

40 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

the land and resources within their ancestral lands. No type of physical development or exploitation maybe initiated or conducted within ancestral land without obtaining the formal consent or free prior informed consent of the concerned indigenous peoples in the areas or certificates of precondition* that proposed projects conform to the approved ancestral domain sustainable development and protection plan (ADSDPP). CHARMP2 design had targets of 18 ADSDPPs, 18 CADTs and 3,740 CALTs. At CSPE, only one ADSDPP and one CADT (Kadaclan) was approved and issued because of administrative and institutional difficulties of the NCIP, boundary conflicts among different tribes, and, shifting policy interpretation of obtaining indigenous peoples' consent and land titling issuance processes. At MTR, the project dropped its target for individual ancestral titles or CALTs because of it was “unconstitutional” to issue more than one title over the same parcel of land, thus the issuance of CALTs within CADTs was not allowed (MTR, p.5). In the implementation of sub-projects, community stakeholders cited conflicting interpretations within the NCIP in the issuance of certificate of preconditions* for project-supported sub-activities as a “major cause” of project delay. The problem in the issuance of ancestral titles and approvals of ADSDPP has been a continuing challenge. In 2007, a review by the World Bank on the implementation of the IPRA reported that the NCIP accomplishment in the issuance of ancestral domain titles were “quite small” considering the number of ancestral domain claims. The same was true for the approval of ADSDPP. The WB study cited among others the following reasons: lack of technical expertise, boundary conflicts between IPs and non-IPs and among IPs and lack of financial and logistical resources. These are the same key reasons cited in the CHARMP2 project. * Certificate issued by the NCIP, signed by the Chairperson, attesting to the grant of free, prior and informed consent by the concerned indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples after appropriate compliance with the requirements provided for in these Guidelines

Source: CSPE team; Josefo B. Tuyor. et al. (2007). Indigenous Peoples Rights Act: Legal and Institutional Frameworks, Implementation and Challenges in the Philippines: Discussion papers, Washington D.C, World Bank 123. At the same time, it has also emerged that the absence of CADTs has not held back community developments under the project. Some argue that these rights are critical for the future and provide an important tool for sustainable development and protection of indigenous peoples' rights. The uneven success of projects in trying to secure land rights indicates that this is an area in which the overall policy framework needs further elaboration and that the skills required for successful negotiation may be beyond the scope of project interventions. 124. Natural resource management. There were moderate achievements towards the objective relating to natural resource management (NRM). NRM has been an important aspect in the portfolio, in particular in NMCIREMP and CHARMP2. The investment on NRM in the portfolio is significantly increasing as a result of INREMP, which is just initiating its activities, though its implementation is not assessed in the CSPE. More detailed assessment on NRM is provided in a dedicated sub-section later on "environment and natural resource management". 125. Agricultural production. Support to irrigation development has been effective in improving agricultural production and productivity. RaFPEP- IRPEP has had a principal focus on rehabilitation of CISs and institutional strengthening of IAs to manage and maintain the systems. In NMCIREMP and CHARMP2, support to irrigation (also CIS) emerged through local-level participatory development planning process, given that such investment was included in the "menu" for project support. RaFPEP-IRPEP alone has covered 109 CIS with 9,347 hectares of irrigation service areas. 126. A combination of rehabilitation of the irrigation systems and effective institutional strengthening support for IAs has worked very well. According to the RaFPEP-IRPEP PCR prepared in 2016, the project benefited 14,082 farmer beneficiaries through the rehabilitation and restoration of irrigation facilities of the 109 CIS covering 9,347 hectares of irrigated areas. Of these farmers, 12,239 or 87

41 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

per cent became members of 112 IAs97 (30 per cent women). Many of them are tenants and sharecroppers, who are likely to be resource-poorer than owner- cultivators. CHARMP2 has supported 36 IAs (5,363 members, 43 per cent women). Rehabilitation of the schemes has contributed to improving the conveyance efficiency of the systems and the reliability of irrigation water. IAs had been formed when CISs were constructed decades ago, but with deterioration of the schemes, they were not functional. Consistently reported increases in the membership of IAs and collection rates of irrigation service fees in RaFPEP-IRPEP are among the clear indications of improved performance of irrigation systems, as well as organizational performance of IAs.98 In general, there are evidences on the achievements made, for example, in terms of the increase in areas irrigated, cropping intensity, average yields reported. These will be discussed in more detail in a later section on rural poverty impact. The project trained 5,048 IA officers and members (33 per cent women) on irrigation operation and maintenance related activities.99 127. There are encouraging data on the adoption level of farmer training. Under RaFPEP-IRPEP, 172 farmer field schools (FFS) were conducted by the Agriculture Training Institute on palay check100 for CIS farmers. A cascade model was used to disseminate the training through Master Trainers, in which 5,295 farmers participated (125 per cent against the target of 5,000), with women constituting 48 per cent.101 The adoption rates of the different elements of the palay check training was reported to range between 60-90 per cent,102 based on available data from RaFPEP-IRPEP (Region VIII). During the CSPE team's discussion with the beneficiaries (FFS participants under RaFPEP-IRPEP), the training topics that were most frequently mentioned as useful included integrated pest management and organic fertilizer. 128. CHARMP2 also conducted 63 FFS with the participation of 5,200 farmers, including crop and livestock management, NRM, environmentally sustainable farming techniques and market information. Under CHARMP2, Provincial Agriculture Offices produced and broadcast School-on-Air programmes as a means of education and information dissemination on the project for target communities. NMCIREMP reported the establishment of 174 learning sites on farming systems/technologies (158 per cent achievement against the target), training of 14,000 farmers/fisher folks, as well as "trainers" (91 fishery technicians, 48 agricultural technicians and 145 farmer para-technicians), generally surpassing the output targets (including the achievement over 200 per cent). 129. The expected and actual outcomes of a large investment on seed distribution in RaFPEP-RaSSFiP relative to agricultural production are not clear. The provision of certified seeds was the only focus of this sub-project, which was conceived in response to the 2008 food crisis. The stated objective of this sub- project was "to secure the supply of paddy seeds for CIS in the RaSSFiP area for the year 2009/2010 cropping seasons". The seeds were in the end distributed over 3 cropping seasons (in different areas). There was no close linkage with the other

97 The number of IAs (112) is more than the number of CISs rehabilitated (109) because some CISs can have more than IAs. 98 The average collection rates for irrigation service fees for the 22 and 63 IAs in Regions X and VI were reported to be 129 and 85 per cent for the year 2014. Region VIII has the lowest average irrigation service fees collection efficiency rate at only 42 per cent due to the negative effects by typhoons (“Yolanda” in 2013 and “Glenda”, “Ruby” and “Seniang” in 2014). (2015 RaFPEP supervision mission report) 99 RaFPEP-IRPEP draft PCR. June-July 2016. 100 Palay check is "a dynamic rice crop management system that: (i) presents the best key technology and management practices as Key Checks;(ii) compares farmer practices with the best practices; and (iii) earns through farmers´ discussion group to sustain improvement in productivity, profitability, and environment safety" (http://www.pinoyrice.com/palaycheck/) 101 RaFPEP-IRPEP draft PCR June-July 2016. 102 The adoption rates were reported as follows: (a) 61 per cent for variety and seed selection; (b) 80 per cent for land preparation; (c) 87 per cent for crop establishment- synchronous planting; (d) 76 per cent for crop establishment - sufficient number of healthy seedling; (e) 62 per cent for nutrient establishment (f) 70 per cent for water management; (g) 65 per cent for pest management; (h) 90 per cent for harvest management. (RaFPEP supervision mission report, June 2015)

42 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

sub-project RaFPEP-IRPEP except that the RaFPEP-IRPEP beneficiaries were also covered by RaFPEP-RaSSFiP: for most of the farmers who received the seeds (reported as over 300,000 farmers), the project support was only one-off provision of seeds. 130. Access to markets. Some initial and modest progress has been recorded in terms of improving farmers' access to markets for agricultural produce. A key strategy has been on the one hand, improving physical access by investing in public infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges), and on the other hand through value chain development, which has become an important facet of many IFAD-financed projects. Support to rural infrastructure is discussed later. 131. CHARMP2 had a component "agriculture and agribusiness development, and income-generating activities", which, in design, included value chain approach.103 But at the start of CHARMP2, the concept and approach were not well understood by project staff and the guidance in the design and by supervision and implementation support missions were not adequate. The MTR noted that various production activities had been undertaken without a clear understanding of the market requirements and attributed this to lack of value chain analysis and expertise within the project. 132. Only through a fortuitous interaction with the IFAD grant-funded FoodStart project team (see section IV.D) has the project been able to make progress in this area. The project adopted a modified version of the FFS called Farmer Business School to train group members. Some 73 LIGs are reported to have participated in Farmer Business School. By 2015, CHARMP2 supported 69 marketing groups and 35 groups in the production of environmentally safe products.104 However, most groups still have low sales and products have mainly been sold within the barangays. Common problems included seasonal and low volume of production (including losses from pests and diseases), lack of processing equipment and labour-saving technologies, limited skills in business and marketing and high production and transportation costs. To the extent that products were being sold locally, organic producers earn little, without reaching buyers willing to pay a premium for environmental, health or cultural stewardship. 133. Microenterprise development and livelihoods activities. The effectiveness of group-based approach to increasing livelihoods and enterprise opportunities has not been sufficiently demonstrated. NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 have taken similar approaches for this, through strengthening existing groups or establishing new groups, providing them training (technical and business/financial) and financial resources (small one time grant or "loan"). NMCIREMP financed 719 livelihoods activities and 44 community enterprises through the Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF, at two levels). CHARMP2 has provided about PHP 60 million under the "Livelihoods Assistance Fund" to 644 LIGs (involving over 17,000 members). 134. The activities financed included crop and livestock production, processing and marketing and trading. In CHARMP2, the identification of activities was linked to market potential and priority commodities including coffee, sweet potatoes, heirloom rice and organic vegetables. However, there are also cases where the relevance of LIG enterprises to the project objectives is questionable.105 For

103 "The approach of this activity is to identify with potential private enterprise buyers the potential to improve the value added of crops grown in the existing, de facto organic, paddy and shifting cultivation farming systems and to build up the value chain of such products. No change in the indigenous farming systems or cropping techniques will be required. The value chain will aim at creating or penetrating domestic and/or export niche markets where high quality output will fetch premium prices." (CHARMP2 appraisal report). 104 CHARMP2 supervision mission report (March 2015). 105 The 2015 supervision mission also noted the observation as follows: "…there are too many newly organized LIGs not associated with priority commodities. As such, a majority have not received assistance before the livelihoods assistance fund support; and do not benefit from enterprise development plans to guide a more integrated, market- oriented approach for their products. To address this risk, the previous mission recommended assessing the LIGs and

43 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

example, the CSPE team met a number of LIGs which engage in buying and bringing products (e.g. poultry or rice) from outside to sell in the community, hence not linked to agricultural or enterprise activities of other community members. 135. Have these activities actually led to improved livelihoods opportunities, beyond one-off support by the projects? The available evidence suggests that there are indeed cases of success and with good prospect, but the extent is not known. It is also too early to be conclusive for most LIGs in CHARMP2 but interaction with the groups by the CSPE team suggested some uncertainties, due to external factors (e.g. pest and disease on crops), uncertain feasibility of supported enterprises or lack of entrepreneurial skills. Supervision missions have raised issues106 about the sustainability of benefits generated or sustainability of such groups (i.e. continuation of collective enterprise activities), although, on the latter, what should be expected from such groups is another question to be reflected on (to be discussed later). 136. RuMEPP had cases of significant contribution to development of microenterprises, but the extent of such successful cases among those who were reached by the programme, as well as the acceptable attrition rate, is not known with certainty, in absence of comprehensive and reliable data. It was reported that 57,330 microenterprises were provided with credits and 32,318 persons with business development services, of whom 14,956 both credit and business development services (cases of "convergence"). The available data suggests that most of them were indeed the first level of microenterprises (with assets less than PHP 50,000) but that a majority of beneficiaries appear to have been existing microenterprises, not start-ups. 137. Implemented through DTI, unlike NMCIREMP/CHARMP2, RuMEPP did not have a group-based approach: some beneficiaries were part of groups (e.g. cooperatives) but many were individuals (existing or potential/new). The credit activities were implemented purely through established financial institutions according to their rules and procedures, unlike the cases of NMCIREMP and CHARMP2. 138. Access to finance. In RuMEPP, the disbursement performance of credit funds was satisfactory, but there is little evidence that the project made a decisive difference in access to finance by the target group, for example, for first-time borrowers or other microenterprises who would not have had access otherwise. The credit component was almost entirely about the injection of credit funds into the financial sector, which was not necessarily the most critical constraint for many MFIs to provide "better" financial services, e.g. for them to make financial services more responsive to the needs of microenterprises (e.g. new products or adjustments in terms and conditions). 139. In both NMCIREMP and CHARMP2, there was little achievement in terms of improving access to finance/credits. The design included credit sub-component and allocated some funds for credit lines, but they were eventually converted to grants or revolving funds operated by the community or loans to be converted to grants upon full repayment. 140. Rural infrastructure. The investments in physical infrastructure are most valued by rural communities with notable outcomes and impact. Outcomes of irrigation-related infrastructure were discussed above in relation to improved production and productivity; here, the discussion will be mainly focused on farm-

qualifying those to be provided with the livelihoods assistance fund. However this was not systematically undertaken prior to provision of the livelihoods assistance fund." 106 For example, CHARMP2 supervision mission of 2015.

44 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

to-market roads, domestic water supplies and community-purpose buildings. Among these, investments in farm-to-market roads were the largest. 141. In both NMCIREMP and CHARMP2, approximately half of the project cost is for the construction or rehabilitation of rural infrastructure identified based on a detailed barangay-level demand driven planning process. In NMCIREMP, the achievement rate was between 77 and 117 per cent against the MTR targets for different types of rural infrastructure. In CHARMP2, after a slow start, the implementation of this component has been dramatically expedited. The implementation progress related to rural infrastructure development is therefore judged to be satisfactory at the time of CSPE. These investments are reported to have contributed to increased mobility, reduction in transport cost and travel time, increase access to basic needs like water, other social services and markets. 142. Limited financial capacity of many LGUs to provide their share of costs presented a severe constraint, but this has been largely addressed. The projects initially sought to align with the cost sharing formula of the Government.107 There was considerable delay in the infrastructure sub-projects particularly CHARMP2 in poor municipalities with limited budgets and capacity to generate internal resources to provide their share. In CHARMP2 this problem was resolved only after the set formula was officially suspended in September 2011108 as a result of advocacy by IFAD and the Department of Agriculture in view of the challenges in enforcing the Government formula with resource-poor LGUs.109 Under RaFPEP-IRPEP, the provincial governments helped the LGUs to provide the 30 per cent required for CIS rehabilitation. 143. Effectiveness assessment – summary. The achievements have been most notable and visible in terms of support to irrigated agriculture (in particular, under RaFPEP-IRPEP), improved rural infrastructure (e.g. roads, footpaths, bridges, water, community-purpose buildings), improved participation of communities in development processes and strengthening their organizations (though with varied performance for different types of organizations), and to less extent, microenterprise development (RuMEPP). The evidence is mixed for other areas such as NRM and improved access to markets by the target group (through support to non-infrastructure activities), also given that a focused attention on the latter is a more recent phenomenon (especially in CHARMP2). While RuMEPP was successful in disbursing microcredits, there was little evidence that the project induced improvement in financial services for microentrepreneurs. The earlier success hailed as a pioneer initiative in earlier projects on supporting land tenure security for indigenous peoples has faced challenges in CHARMP2 with little achievement in this regard against the set objectives and targets, although the relevance of such support in the context of CAR would have deserved more careful reflection in conceptualization and planning stage (see paragraphs 104-106). The effectiveness of the portfolio is overall rated as moderately satisfactory (4).

Efficiency 144. Efficiency is a measure of how economically resources and inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted into results. This criterion will be looked at in the following aspects: (i) time lapse between loan approval and effectiveness; (ii) disbursement performance; (iii) project implementation and management processes; (iv) mobilization of additional financing; (v) project management cost; and (iv) benefits generated. The assessment focuses on the four projects

107 According to the National Government-LGU Cost Sharing Policy, 1st and 2nd class LGUs are required to finance 70 per cent of the costs, 3rd and 4th class LGUs 60 per cent, and 5th and 6th class LGUs 50 per cent. 108 Memorandum Circular #24 of 19 September 2011, which reduced the LGUs' cost-sharing for road projects. 109 IFAD financed a study looking into this issue in 2011, "National Government – Local Government Unit Cost Sharing Policy Study". See also para 338.

45 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

(NMCIREMP, RuMEPP, RaFPEP and CHARMP2. Some elements of efficiency have also been included for INREMP which became effective in April 2013. 145. Timeline: design, entry into force and disbursement. The data on the time it takes from the approval, signing, entry into force (effectiveness) and the first disbursement for five projects are provided in table 9. There are notable differences between the projects, with earlier projects (NMCIREMP and RuMEPP) with longer delays. The overall average of the portfolio for five projects is comparable to or better (time to first disbursement) than the average of APR. Table 9 Timeline between approval to first disbursement (months) Project ID Project name Loan approval Loan signing to Loan approval Loan effectiveness Loan approval to to signing effectiveness to effectiveness to first first disbursement disbursement

1137 NMCIREMP 4.1 11.9 16.0 3.3 19.3

1253 RuMEPP 6.9 11.8 18.7 4.2 22.9

1395 CHARMP2 1.4 5.4 6.8 8.5 15.3

1485 RaFPEP 8.6 2.3 10.9 2.4 13.3

1475 INREMP 4.0 0* 4.0* 9.3 13.3

Average 5 7.9** 13.1** 5.5 16.82

APR average*** 4.46 8.00 12.46 9.4 22.6 * Since the General Conditions for Agricultural Development Financing was amended in 2009, financing agreements between IFAD and governments enter into force upon the signature by both parties (unless the respective financing agreement states that it is subject to ratification). Prior to this, financing agreements used to contain conditions for effectiveness, upon fulfilment of which the financing agreement was declared effective. Hence, for the financing agreements signed after this change, the date of effectiveness, or now called "entry into force" is the same day as the date of the financing agreement. ** In light of the point above, the average is computed without INREMP data. *** For projects in APR approved between 2000 and 2008 146. RaFPEP presents a peculiar case, with a long time lag between the approval and loan signing (8.6 months), especially considering that this project was conceived as an emergency response to the food crisis in 2008 and the design process was fast- tracked with the intention of disbursing the funds for seed acquisition 1-2 months after the board approval. The delay between the board approval and the signing was because of the discussion on the lending terms.110 The financing was approved in December 2008, but the first disbursement was in January 2010, more than a year after the approval. 147. While the timeline for the milestones after the approval is on average close to the overall regional performance, the portfolio is characterized by a long gestation period at design stage, from the inception/conceptualization up to the approval (figure 5). For the three latest projects (INREMP, CONVERGE and FishCORAL), this is largely because of the prudent review process by the government, in particular during the 2011-2016 administration. CONVERGE was originally scheduled for submission to the Executive Board in April 2012111, and FishCORAL for the April 2014 session, but both were eventually approved in September 2015.

110 Initially it was proposed that the loan be provided on a highly concessional terms even if the country was then eligible for borrowing on an intermediate terms, but the Executive Board did not agree with this. The acceptance of the intermediate terms then had to be confirmed by the government, which caused the delay. 111 As for CONVERGE, it should be noted that one project component (component A for value chain analysis and planning) was approved by the NEDA Board in November 2012 with the provision that it would be funded from the 2013 government budget (under the General Appropriation Act). Consequently, under this approved component, DAR updated Value Chain Investment Plans for 11 targeted Agrarian Reform Communities and submitted them to the NEDA Board for consideration and approval of the other project components. The NEDA Board confirmed the approval by the Investment Coordination Committee in October 2014.

46 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Figure 5 Timeline from inception to effectiveness

EB: Executive Board; CPMT: country programme management team (meeting); QA: quality assurance; QE: quality enhancement; TRC: technical review committee (up to 2007). All of these are steps on the IFAD side. 148. A top-up financing for RaFPEP-IRPEP was approved in November 2012 by the Executive Board but a financing agreement was never signed and it was eventually cancelled in 2014 (see also paragraph 107).112 149. Disbursement performance. The Philippines portfolio follows a general pattern of slow disbursement in initial years which in many cases shows notable improvements later (in particular, RuMEPP and CHARMP2), whereas INREMP still lags far behind and rated "highly unsatisfactory" (1) in the latest PSR. The average ratings on "disbursement performance" in the PSRs have however been higher than the regional APR average (see annex XI). 150. The comparison of expected and actual disbursement and disbursement lag113 for RuMEPP and CHARMP2 are provided in tables below. The disbursement performance for CHARMP2 was rated "unsatisfactory" for three consecutive years (2011-2013) in PSRs, due to, among others, lack of progress in rural infrastructure over the cost-sharing policy between the national government and LGUs. The project has nevertheless dramatically expedited the disbursement since 2014.114 RuMEPP also had slow disbursement initially115, but in this case, the Small Business Corporation (wholesale lender) had already started financing the activities with its own funds and therefore, there is no evidence that the pace of the credit component implementation suffered.

112 Based on the letter from DA dated 31 July 2014, informing IFAD that the activities were funded by the Government already 113 As part of annual portfolio exercise by the IFAD Programme Management Department, expected disbursement profiles are worked out for each type of project (such as credit, livestock, research, etc) based on the analysis of all historical loan disbursement performance. The disbursement lag is calculated as follows: [(expected disbursement amount) – (actual disbursement amount)]/expected disbursement amount. Negative figures mean faster disbursement than expected, and positive figures indicate slower disbursement. 114 Philippines Portfolio Review Report 2010-2014. October 2015. IFAD 115 Especially for the credit component, due to the delays in meeting the conditions precedent to withdrawal for the component (e.g. subsidiary loan agreement between the Government and SBC).

47 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Figure 6-A Figure 6-B Expected and actual disbursement: RuMEPP Disbursement lag: RuMEPP

15 40% 10 Sum of Expected 20% 5 Disb (SDR m) 0% Sum of 0 Disb(SDR m) -20%

-40%

Figure 6-C Figure 6-D Expected and actual disbursement: CHARMP2 Disbursement lag: CHARMP2

20 60% 15 Sum of 50% Expected 40% 10 30% Disb (SDR m) 5 20% Sum of 10% 0 Disb(SDR m) 0%

151. In general, the concentration of fund utilization towards the end of the project leaves little time for proper utilization and many activities have to be expedited which can compromise the quality of investments that need relatively longer gestation periods such as institutional development. 152. The disbursement record of RaFPEP should be reviewed with caution as an outlier, which pushes up the average rating. First, a large share of the IFAD loan and the EU grant (in total approximately US$23.8 million) was disbursed in one tranche as the first disbursement in January 2010 for seeds. Therefore, even though there were delays in in-country procurement and distribution of seeds and the actual expenditures occurred later and over a longer period, such peculiar disbursement practice distorts the average. Second, the IFAD financing for IRPEP (second sub- project of RaFPEP) is only 9 per cent of the total sub-project cost. 153. INREMP has only disbursed 5.6 per cent of the IFAD loan (as of June 2016) almost three years after entry into force. Aside from start-up delays, the project experienced turnover of staff, delays in procurement of consultants to implement the project, problems in dealing with the LGUs of Bukidnon and Lanao del Sur. 154. Utilization of resources. The Philippine portfolio has been good at utilizing most of the available resources despite some of the initial delays and variable disbursement rates (figure 7). Figure 7 Utilization of project budget and IFAD funds for completed projects

150% 110% 106% 99% 88% 94% 100% 80%

50%

0% NMCIREMP RuMEPP RaFPEP

% of total project budget utilized % of IFAD funds utilized

Source: IFAD database, Oracle Business Intelligence. NMCIREMP PCR and PPA. RuMEPP PCR and PPE. RaFPEP supervision mission report. 21st September 2015. 155. Mobilization of additional financing. The level of additional resources from various partners was examined for the seven loans and eight projects (treating

48 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

RaSSFiP and IRPEP under separately). The analysis shows that, the co-financing was on average US$2.66 for every dollar IFAD has invested. This is notably higher than the corporate target of 1:1.6 ratio. It should be noted, though, that INREMP, with US$100 million co-financing by ADB, significantly pushes up the figure, and in this case, it would be more correct to say that ADB leveraged resources from IFAD rather than the other way around. Table 10 Co-financing mobilization Total project IFAD funding Leverage Comment budget or actual (USD mn) ratio costs (USD mn)

NMCIREMP (actual, PPA) 23.6 13.9 1:1.7

RuMEPP (actual, PPE/PCR) 25.2 18.9 1:1.3 Co-financing mainly by SBC and MFIs

CHARMP2 (budget) 56.4* 27.1 1:2.08 Co-financing mainly by OFID and LGUs for infrastructure

RaFPEP-RaSSFiP (budget) 25.25 14.5 1:1.74 Co-financing by EU grant (about US$10 million)

RaFPEP-IRPEP (budget) 21.9 1.35 1:16 Very low IFAD financing. Co- financing by national government and LGUs

INREMP (budget) 154.1 20 1:7.7 ADB co-financing US$100 mill

CONVERGE (budget) 52.5 25.0 1:2.1

FishCORAL (budget) 43.5 30.65 1:1.42

TOTAL 402.5 153.31 1:2.66 * After deduction of US$10 million of ADB co-financing which has been cancelled.

156. Project management costs. Most projects have generally kept their operating costs below the budgeted amount except in the case of NMCIREMP where this proportion exceeded the allocated amount and was 15 per cent of total actual cost. Overall the record of the Philippine country programme fares very well when compared to other countries.116 Figure 8 Project management costs as a proportion of planned budgets and actual costs 20% 15% 9% 10% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 4% 3% 1% 0% NMCIREMP RuMEPP CHARMP2 RaFPEP RaSSFiP IRPEP (%) of Project Management as a share of Planned Budget Actual PM budget as (%) of Actual Exenditure

Source. All Appraisal documents, NMCIREMP PCR, RuMEPP PCR. CHARMP2 M&E records as of April 2016; RaFPEP supervision mission report (September 2015) 157. Benefits. Benefit cost ratios from different livelihood investments by the SHGs was reported by some of the projects such as NMCIREMP. The PCR for the project noted that aquaculture/fisheries, crop production and vegetable production all yielded positive benefits at 1.47, 1.14 and 1.1 respectively. The same report also indicated that, despite the high incomes from livestock production, the benefit-cost ratio for

116 The IFAD publication, "Effective project management arrangements for agricultural projects: A synthesis of selected case studies and quantitative analysis (IFAD 2014)" indicated that "IFAD’s overall project management costs generally ranged between 8-24 per cent of programme costs". The Annual Report on Results and Impact 2014 by IOE included a learning theme of "project management" and indicated that "project management costs average approximately 10 per cent of total project costs in the projects reviewed

49 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

pig production was only 0.66 – which seems rather puzzling as this would have meant that the beneficiaries were losing. Nonetheless, the issue of high cost (especially for feed), low returns for pig production was also mentioned by some of the women interviewed by the CSPE. Processing as a means of value-addition had fared quite poorly indicating most likely low quality of products as well as low technology and weak market linkages. 158. Most IFAD projects undertake a financial and economic rate of return at appraisal which is sometimes recalculated at completion. Three of the four projects under review calculated an internal rate of return and estimated a net present value at design, although in the case of RuMEPP this was confined to fiscal impact and not a comprehensive economic and financial analysis. The discount rates used were 8 or 15 per cent. The internal rate of return was estimated in the range between 16 and 30 per cent. At project completion, the NMCIREMP PCR re-estimated it at 34 per cent, 7 percentage points higher than initial estimate. The RuMEPP PCR re- computed the net present value of the fiscal impact as PHP 789 million against the projection at appraisal stage of PHP 878 million, a lower figure initially due to the initial delays in the disbursement to the Small Business Corporation. However, given the early repayment of most of the loan by the Small Business Corporation to the government, the PCR recalculation would not be valid anymore and the figure would be much smaller. 159. While the costs of different partners are recorded, there has not been a reflection on the opportunity cost of participating communities. Many community members spend considerable time in participating in discussion and preparation of the Participatory Investment Plans and other meetings. Also, the returns from different components such as infrastructure, natural resource management, livelihood options, rural finance provision, etc. has not been carefully assessed to identify which of the components yield the greatest return. Projects tend to include a range of many small activities based on the assumption that everything has a comparable value. 160. Efficiency assessment – summary. The weakest area of portfolio performance with regard to efficiency has been considerable time lags between design, approval, and effectiveness, and delays in disbursement and implementation progress especially in initial years. On the other hand, there are also positive indications, such as the relatively low proportion of project management costs, the high level of funds utilization at completion despite initial delays. The portfolio is rated moderately satisfactory (4) for this criterion.

Rural poverty impact 161. This section provides an assessment of the projects' impact on rural poverty, specifically for the following impact domains: (i) household income and net assets; (ii) human and social capital and empowerment; (iii) food security and agricultural productivity; and (iv) institutions and policies. 162. The analysis on the poverty impact of projects is often challenging due to the paucity of data. Table 11 summarises the surveys undertaken in the four projects. More detailed description of some of these surveys is provided in annex XII. Even when impact surveys have been undertaken, often there are methodological issues, hence doubts on the reliability of data. In light of these limitations, the assessment is informed by triangulation of data and information from different sources.

50 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 11 Overview of available data related to baseline data, outcomes and impact Baseline Outcome/impact assessment surveys, other Notes, additional information data and reports

NMCIREMP Immediate impact assessment (2011, prior IOE PPA (2012) to PCR)

RuMEPP 2010 RIMS survey (2012) IOE PPE (2016) Outcome surveys (2011 and 2012)

RaFPEP Inventory report 2015; functionality survey on IAs (annual)

CHARMP2 2010 RIMS survey at mid-term (2012) BPMET results web – piloted in one barangay BPMET results web (2015) BPMET: Barangay Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Team

163. Household income and net assets. There are indications of the projects' contribution to increased household incomes, even though it is difficult to be conclusive about the magnitude and extent. The available survey data are often not reliable and also inconsistent. 164. The NMCIREMP PPA assessed the project impact on household income and assets as satisfactory. The PPA noted that, while an increase of 19 per cent in real net incomes reported in the impact assessment and the PCR might be excessive, there was sufficient evidence from other sources indicating an increase in net income of at least 5 per cent. Productive activities by/through SHGs were thought to have played a role, although SHG activities always did not directly lead to increased household incomes. For example, animal husbandry activities or vegetable production may have contributed more to household food security and diversified food intake, but not necessarily incomes. 165. In RuMEPP, the project contributed to increased incomes of participating microenterprises as well as job creation, but the extent is not known. The available data are inconsistent between different surveys, all of which had some methodological issues. The 2016 impact evaluation indicated that none of business profits, sales, assets or employee counts showed significant improvements among beneficiaries compared to the control group, but that commercial land ownership improved. On the other hand, two outcome surveys administered by RuMEPP provided more positive pictures based on "before" and "after" situations with memory recalls. Nonetheless, there is some consistency in reported results from different sources and the PPE that increases in income and profitability of beneficiary microenterprise are likely to have occurred. It is also difficult to assess the level of project contribution, due to multiple factors, including other complementary support (e.g. provision of small equipment and machinery), varied intensity of RuMEPP support, readiness and maturity of microenterprise at the time of RuMEPP support. 166. Successful and growing microenterprises supported under RuMEPP led to job creation, full-time or part-time. Those jobs created, in particular for non-family members, have contributed to increased incomes for them – either in terms of better pay, more regularity in pay, new or diversified income sources. 167. Investment in irrigation development has contributed to an increase in rice production, which would have improved incomes either by being able to sell more, or in an indirect way, by saving part of the money which had to be spent on buying rice. Irrigation development was supported under NMCIREMP, CHARMP2 and RaFPEP-IRPEP.

51 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

168. There is insufficient evidence of CHARMP2 impact on household incomes, even though it is approaching the completion. Available survey reports117 do not provide any concrete evidence of impact in this regard. It should also be noted that the implementation of most activities which could directly impact on the household incomes (in particular, support to LIGs) got expedited only in 2014. According to the interviews by the CSPE team with more than 130 women and men from 9 LIGs of CHARMP2, 20 per cent of those interviewed indicated some increase in their incomes in the range of between 5 and 30 per cent. Only a few LIGs had been successful in increasing the income of their members. 169. Improved rural infrastructure such as roads is most likely to have had positive impact on incomes, as well as access to services. Although there has not been an attempt to assess this and there is no data, the testimonies from the field were quite consistent. In particular, NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 financed such investments. Farm-to-market roads, footpaths and footbridges are likely to have improved physical access to markets and reduced transportation costs and time. 170. The data on household assets is limited, but for many households, the first priority for use of additional incomes appears to be children's schooling and meeting the basic needs, over acquiring assets. This emerged as an almost unanimous view among many households through discussions in the field. In the case of RuMEPP, most of the microenterprises met by the PPE team reported increased business assets, but often this was due to other complementary initiatives (e.g. provision of small equipment for food processing). 171. Human and social capital and empowerment. The cornerstone of almost all projects in the portfolio has been capacity building of beneficiaries, both individual skills and supporting them to organize and strengthen their institutions. The efforts to strengthen collective/organizational capacity covered organizations such as cooperatives, SHGs, LIGs, IAs (see table 8 in earlier section). 172. NMCIREMP, RaFPEP and CHARMP2 have successfully promoted a greater role of the communities in prioritizing community infrastructure needs and their operation and maintenance. In NMCIREMP and CHARMP2, the communities also actively participated in the supervision and monitoring of schemes during their implementation, in the form of "Community-based Operation & Maintenance Monitoring and Evaluation Teams" in NMCIREMP (160 reported) or "Barangay Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Teams" (known as BPMET) in CHARMP2. 173. The CSPE team noted in the field visits that communities continued to maintain the infrastructure which was key for their survival such as the domestic water supply schemes and irrigation facilities provided there was no major damage or substantial costs entailed in the process. IAs in the Philippines present an excellent model for participatory irrigation management with the concept of cost recovery well-embedded. The investment in rehabilitating CISs has served the purpose of further strengthening these IAs. 174. The portfolio has been strong in supporting the rights of indigenous peoples, but with mixed achievements. In NMCIREMP, the process of securing the titles empowered the communities to undertake culture-based resource management and resource-based income generating interventions. The success in Northern Mindanao has not been repeated in CAR, where different population patterns have led to prolonged boundary disputes while there were also challenges with institutional framework, inconsistent interpretation and application of policies

117 RIMS report at mid-term in 2012 and 2015 outcome survey. In any case, the 2012 RIMS report noted that “no significant movement in the wealth quintiles was expected to have resulted from the implementation of the project since implementation was only just starting in earnest. If there are differences or apparent movements, these may not be directly attributable to CHARMP2 project intervention." If this was a caveat, it is puzzling why the survey was undertaken at all.

52 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

and regulations (also see box 4). Nevertheless, CHARMP2 assisted communities in becoming more aware of their rights on the land and mechanisms of negotiating with the LGUs and the private sector in the exercise of those claims.118 Another notable achievement in NMCIREMP was increased representation of tribal leaders in local development councils, which "had a significant impact both on them and on the communities they serve."119 175. With regard to impact on rural people's organizations and social capital, there is need to recognize distinct functions and constraints of different types of organizations (e.g. community institutions, people's organizations, SHGs and LIGs, IAs), although some of these tend to be lumped together in the reporting. Even the groups carrying the same name like "SHGs" can vary in terms of how they are set up and function. Group formation may well be driven by the opportunities to access project services and funding, in particular in the case of SHGs and LIGs. 176. The PPA of NMCIREMP reported that the level of both individual and broader social capital development through the SHGs was considerable and that the majority of them were found to be still operational then. Discussion by the CSPE team with some of the NMCIREMP communities revealed that some SHGs and community institutions supported by the project, though the survival rate is unknown, still play a role in undertaking development activities. Some serve as entry points for another development project. 177. SHGs/LIGs which had been mostly created by the projects for the delivery of training, inputs or financial resources are of variable quality, especially if the expectation was for them to sustain the groups to engage in productive, enterprise and/or marketing activities collectively. Existing studies do not explore their distinct features sufficiently for lessons to be drawn about in which cases what kind of "group" form can serve well and can have positive impact, and what factors may support or hold back success. As for LIGs in CHARMP2, from the CSPE team's interaction and observations in the field, the sign of rushed implementation and "project-driven" group formation was evident. 178. As for "people's organizations" with legal status which are larger than SHGs/LIGs, the NMCIREMP PPA120 noted that with limited capital and skills coupled with leadership conflicts, the path to organizational maturity did not seem to be accessible to many community institutions, and consequently there was a degree of dependency on external support agencies. These findings are in line with the CSPE team's observations in the field. 179. Among the diverse types of organizations supported in the portfolio, IAs are the best performing. The annual surveys on institutional strengths of IAs conducted in RaFPEP-IRPEP show improvement in the scores over years.121 A review by the CSPE mission of the records of 10 IAs supported by RaFPEP-IRPEP and CHARMP2 showed that they had a good system of governance and management with good participation of the members, good collection rates of irrigation service fee and maintenance of the channels. Some were also undertaking other philanthropic activities and social events in the communities. A

118 CSPE team discussion with community members in Bayyo Barangay in Mountain Province. 119 "As local development council members, they are directly involved in local decision-making and are able to advocate for their communities. This has meant that these leaders have been able to convince government agencies to invest in local infrastructure and programmes, thereby strengthening their governance capacity and confidence. The signing of 15 intra-tribal and three inter-tribal coalition agreements involved meetings between entire communities of tribes, which had a significant impact on all sectors of the community in terms of raising knowledge of indigenous people culture and of inter-tribal negotiation and action. The outcome of such forums has been agreements on land boundaries and, inter alia, on land titling and establishment of nature reserves." (NMCIREMP PPA) 120 Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource Management Project. Project Performance Assessment November 2012.Report No. 2751-PH IFAD 121 In 2015, 97 of 109 IAs (88.9 per cent) were rated "satisfactory" or "outstanding", which was an improvement from the previous year and surpassed the IRPEP target of 60 per cent.

53 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

clear and well-recognized mandate, the existence of institutional home and ongoing support by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), the centrality of irrigation systems to "survival" for cultivators may be among the key factors for their good performance. 180. In summary, the portfolio has achieved good impact on human and social capital and empowerment, especially in terms of individual skills and capacity for economic activities, as well as empowering the communities to effectively participate in local-level planning, implementing and monitoring of development activities, infrastructure maintenance, integration of tribal leaders in local development councils where indigenous peoples are minority (northern Mindanao under NMCIREMP), and strengthening of IAs. Impact on the capacity of beneficiaries' organizations to engage in productive, enterprise or marketing activities seems to be mixed, also depending upon various factors. 181. Food security and agricultural productivity. The NMCIREMP PPA concluded that overall project impact on food security and agricultural productivity was variable across different communities and tended to be modest, even though there was positive impact especially through its irrigation and potable water subprojects, which increased water for crops and livestock. 182. RaFPEP-IRPEP has had positive impact on agricultural productivity and food security. All regions reported an increase in yields as a result of the irrigation investments in conjunction with (though not in all cases) the use of better seeds. The records on average yields in CIS supported by RaFPEP-IRPEP and general statistics are provided in table 12. The 2014 data from the project are comparable to or lower than the national data on average yield in irrigated areas. This is not surprising, as the national data include different types of irrigation systems (i.e. national irrigation systems, CIS, private) and hence, the average figures are expected to be relatively higher than the average of only CIS. Perhaps the important indicator is the change in the yield between 2011 and 2014 in RaFPEP-IRPEP supported CIS compared to the national average. Table 12 Data on average yield: national data and RaFPEP-IRPEP data (tons/hectare) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Change 2011-2014

Data on CIS performance supported by RaFPEP-IRPEP by region

Region VI 3.75 4.28 +14%

Region VIII 3.43 4.00 +17%

Region X 3.15 4.64 +47%

Statistics - national

Average: only irrigated areas 4.02 4.24 4.27 4.43 +10%

Average: rainfed and irrigated 3.68 3.84 3.89 4.00 +8.7% Source: Mini Surveys. NIA as reported in the RaFPEP. Supervision Mission Report. June 2015. Selected Statistics on Agriculture 2015 (Philippines Statistics Authority) 183. While it is difficult to rigorously compare "with" and "without" project scenarios since the crop yields are affected by so many factors, the results of "mini-survey" and focus group discussions conducted by the RaFPEP-IRPEP supervision mission in June 2015122 indicate overall satisfaction of the beneficiaries. Seventy-one per cent of the respondents regarded yield increase "highly satisfactory" and 23 per cent "satisfactory". Ninety-two percent reported diversified food consumption from two

122 It was noted that the participatory assessment was conducted in 3 IAs per region, each from those rated "outstanding/very satisfactory", satisfactory" and "fair/poor". The PA covered 9 in 4 provinces only in the three regions. A total of 234 farmer beneficiaries (Region X – 49, Region VI – 93 and Region X – 92) out of 12,147 IA members, participated in the participatory assessment (144 women).

54 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

types of food groups to three to four types.123 The discussion during the CSPE's field visits largely corroborated such positive picture. No systematic data on benefits from irrigation development is available from CHARMP2, but the reports by beneficiaries of CIS rehabilitation met by the CSPE team also provided positive indications on the impact on agricultural productivity and food security124, through increase in areas irrigated and increased cropping seasons. 184. There are project-level data available on food security from CHARMP2, namely from the baseline survey (2010), RIMS survey at mid-term (2012) and the outcome survey (2015)125, however there are doubts on their reliability for various reasons.126 185. There is no data specifically on food security by RuMEPP. Outcome/impact indicators concerned mainly incomes, business profitability and job creations. Most of the microenterprises were off-farm, hence the issue of agricultural productivity was less relevant. But in a few selected cases, members of cooperatives engaged in cassava production were linked to marketing arrangements, and the participation in the value chain then led to increases in productivity. 186. Institutions and policies. The IFAD portfolio has contributed to improved institutions and policies in various areas. Perhaps the most significant and consistent across the projects is the contribution to enhancing the way government agencies and LGUs work on rural development initiatives and how they work with the rural poor. This includes participatory approach for development planning, implementation and monitoring, in tandem with the efforts to strengthen organizations of the rural poor to be able to effectively participate in such process. All projects worked with and through LGUs, but this was done in the most comprehensive and integrated manner in NMCIREMP and CHARMP2. RuMEPP did not have an explicit focus on "community" based approach as such, but it contributed to DTI's increased focus on microenterprise development and led to launching of a number of major initiatives. One agency with an important role but was challenging to work and influence with was NCIP. 187. Another important aspect has been how the projects have contributed to enhanced collaboration and "convergence" among different government agencies, LGUs and non-public actors, as shown in table 13. What could have complicated the implementation and processes with many agencies involved has worked well in the Philippines. From the interviews by the CSPE team, there was actually a general appreciation for collaborative working arrangements, with the projects serving as a platform for such opportunities.

123 RaFPEP supervision mission report June 2015. Working paper. 124 Farmers met by the CSPE in Barangay Bila who had benefitted from the Shalmekan and Patang Cayapas irrigation systems reported a doubling of their area under the rice crop as a result of which they were buying only 30 per cent of their rice requirements, significantly reduced from previous 70 per cent. Their vegetable production has also doubled. They sell most of the vegetables but they also kept some for home consumption. Members of the IA in Mabilong Barangay in Lubuagan Municipality in Kalinga Province reported that they could double crop rice due to increased availability of irrigation water and their rice yields had also increased. They did not have to buy rice to meet their consumption needs and some households even had a surplus. However, many of the LIGs had also invested in livestock production particularly, pigs, goats and poultry. These households reported an increase in their consumption of livestock products. 125 Outcome Survey. CHARMP2. ASCEND 2015. 126 The RIMS survey in 2012 for CHARMP2 indicated that the percentage of respondents who experienced the first hungry season increased from 8 per cent in 2009 to 13 per cent 2012, but reduced for the second hungry season from 4 per cent in 2009 to 2 per cent in 2012. In the 2015 outcome survey for CHARMP2, almost all respondents said that they were able to feed their families three square meals a day and the report noted that this was a progressive increase since the baseline study. However, it is not clear if the results from the two surveys are comparable, and in any case, it is doubtful that these changes can be attributed to CHARMP2 given the delay in its implementation.

55 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 13 Collaborations among different partners in projects (not including oversight agencies) Project Main lead agency Main implementing partners Other collaborating partners*

NMCIREMP DAR LGUs, NGOs NCIP, DA, DENR

RuMEPP DTI SBC, MFIs, BDS providers LGUs, DOLE, DOST, DA, DENR

CHARMP2 DA (CAR Regional Office) LGUs, NCIP DENR, DTI, CIP, IRRI

RaFPEP-RaSSFiP DA, NFA BPI-NSQCS LGUs

RaFPEP-IRPEP DA, NIA ATI, NFA, LGUs CIP

ATI=Agricultural Training Institute; BPI-NSQCS=Bureau of Plant Industry- National Seed Quality and Control Services; CIP=International Potato Centre; DA=Department of Agriculture; DAR=Department of Agrarian Reform; DENR=Department of Environment and Natural Resources; DOLE=Department of Labour and Employment; DOST=Department of Science and Technology; DTI=Department of Trade and Industry; LGU=Local Government Unit; NCIP=National Commission on Indigenous Peoples; NFA=National Food Authority; NIA=National Irrigation Administration; SBC=Small Business Corporation * Including those that were not initially planned for but linked up as opportunities emerged 188. Another area of notable contribution, especially in earlier projects, relates to processes and policies around indigenous peoples. First, NMCIREMP made contribution to improving the representation of tribal leaders in local development councils.127 The IPRA of 1997 already included a clause that indigenous peoples should be represented in local government bodies but this had not been widely followed. NMCIREMP supported its implementation and the preparation of guidelines in this regard. These guidelines, prepared specifically for the project, reportedly later served as a basis for the national guidelines on mandatory representation of indigenous peoples prepared by NCIP in 2010128 and also led to the issuance of memorandum circular by the Department of the Interior and Local Government in 2010 (1 seat for indigenous peoples).129 189. Second important area of the work with indigenous peoples has been on land titling, with mixed results as noted earlier. The NMCIREMP PPA considered the project achievements in this area "of national significance", involving a series of innovations in both policies and implementation guidelines for land tenure processes in indigenous people areas. CHARMP2 attempted to follow this success but so far very little result due to numerous challenges. The project design proved to be unsuccessful in forging a working partnership with NCIP. 190. The RuMEPP experience and the work under its policy component have contributed to improved public support for microenterprise development and some policy changes, although the causality is difficult to establish. This includes the passing of the so-called "Go Negosyo" Act130 in July 2014, as well as the "SME Roving Academy" operated by DTI on a module-based approach over a period of time, for which the network of private BDS providers and partnerships with other actors such as LGUs and chamber of commerce developed under RuMEPP are being utilized.

127 The NMCIREMP PPA reported that to support coalition-building among tribal groups, the project facilitated the signing of 15 intra-tribal and three inter-tribal coalition agreements. 128 NCIP Administrative Order No. 001, s. 2009 National Guidelines for the Mandatory Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Local Legislative Councils Date Filed: 04 March 2010 129 Interviews by the CSPE team with NCIP and DILG representative in northern Mindanao. 130 Republic Act 10644: An Act Promoting Job Generation and Inclusive Growth through the Development of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The highlights of this Act include: the establishment of "Negosyo Centers" in all provinces, cities and municipalities to promote “ease of doing business and facilitate access to services for MSMEs within its jurisdiction; promotion of technology transfer, production and management training, and marketing assistance for MSMEs; establishment of a Philippine Business Registry Databank under DTI to serve as a database of all business enterprises in the country; establishment of a Start-up Fund for MSMEs “to provide financing for the development and promotion of MSMEs in priority sectors.

56 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

191. On the other hand, opportunities for RuMEPP to influence the quality of MFIs' services were missed. There is little evidence that the credit lines for micro-lending improved access to finance for first-time borrowers or for other microenterprises who would not have had access otherwise, or that the programme induced the introduction or improvement of financial services and products that better suit the needs of microenterprises, except for a few cases reported. On the former point, this is also due to lack of data, for example, on first-time borrowers or start-up or existing microenterprises. 192. Rural poverty impact - summary. The impact from some interventions has been notable in particular with regard to the "institutions and policies" and by "human and social capital and empowerment". The impact on agricultural productivity and food security is visible in particular from support to irrigation and but less clear from other interventions. As for household incomes, successful cases are certainly there, such as growing and new microenterprises, livelihoods and income generation activities, irrigation, better linkage with markets in some cases, but there is inadequate data to be conclusive about the extent and magnitude that was achieved. Given the general tendency of spread of project resources and low intensity of investment, it may be difficult to expect impact on poor rural households on any appreciable scale. Combined together, overall rating for rural poverty impact is moderately satisfactory (4). Sustainability of benefits 193. This section assesses the likely continuation of benefits that were generated by the projects beyond the phase of external funding support. The main areas for which the sustainability of benefits is assessed are: (i) collective capacity of beneficiaries and their organizations; (ii) physical infrastructure; and (iii) pro-poor institutions and approaches of partners to work with the rural poor. 194. Beneficiary organizations. The discussion on the sustainability of collective capacity and activities of beneficiaries' organizations needs to distinguish different types of organizations. The assessment also makes a distinction between continuation of organizations/institutions and their enterprises activities. 195. Organizations such as IAs with a clear mandate and legal status131 have high likelihoods of growth and sustainability. Several factors work in favour: a clear institutional home (NIA), continuous supervision and support by NIA, regular incomes to support the operations and maintenance (irrigation service fees), and the centrality of irrigation systems for their livelihoods. 196. The assessment of sustainability of community institutions and people's organizations is mixed. The NMCIREMP PPA was overall favourable on this, especially water and irrigators’ associations and tribal associations. The cooperatives were found to be still functional by the PPA, in some cases growing. But in PPA's view, it was not clear to what extent these cooperatives could go a step further and be engaged in more diverse and sophisticated enterprise activities, which would require different sets of skills and capacity, such as the ability to meet the market demand, negotiating with the private sector, requirement of machinery and equipment. The CSPE has made similar observations on people's organizations (including cooperatives) supported in CHARMP2. The growth and sustainability of cooperatives or other people's organizations would vary depending on various factors, but as long as there is assistance by the Government or other development

131 IAs have registered mostly with the Securities and Exchange Commission, although a few have registered with other agencies e.g. the Department of Labour and Employment. Securing a registration gives the associations a legal identity and enables it to officially levy an irrigation service fee from each member, acquire water permits, and enter into contracts with NIA and other agencies.

57 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

partners, for which often legal status is needed for eligibility,132 their activities may be sustained at certain level. 197. The sustainability of SHGs and LIGs is less certain and more variable, even though the lines between these groups and larger "people's organizations" are not always clear and some can be "hybrid". The form and extent of "collectivity" for economic activities vary: in some cases productive activities may be managed as a group, in other cases, groups only serve as a channel for funds disbursement, with productive activities managed by individuals, and sometimes, marketing efforts in groups. Without clear advantages of belonging to a group and undertaking economic activities as a group, their sustainability per se will be a challenging proposition. 198. NMCIREMP developed a tool called SIHIGA for assessing maturity of self-help groups and according to the assessment using this tool, PCR indicated that 91 per cent of SHGs assessed in 2009 was considered to be "mature", but there is no updated data, also because there is no institutional home for groups such as SHGs. The CSPE team's interaction with former project beneficiaries provided a mixed picture, with the groups having discontinued with the raising of poultry or goats or pig distributed to them (especially collective ones), due to a variety of reasons.133 The NMCIREMP PCR has reported 10.3 percent of the 418 PAF-financed sub- projects sampled were economically viable,134 although this seems inconsistent with the reported 91 per cent of "mature" SHGs. 199. The likelihoods of CHARMP2-supported LIGs' continuing with livelihoods/enterprise activities seem even less certain. Based on the records and the CSPE team's field visits, the sign of rushed implementation, presumably under pressure to meet the targets, was apparent: many groups have been formed in haste and often with the prospect of accessing funds, rather than out of shared appreciation for the value of groups for certain common purposes which should be much broader than the project. However, if the main purpose of groups was understood to be a temporary project service delivery channel, then, the debate on their continuity would become rather irrelevant. At present, there is little clarity on the purpose of directly providing project funds to groups as "grants" (or loans to be converted to grants) or what should be expected from groups like SHGs and LIGs. 200. Both NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 have devised tools and mechanisms to assess the maturity and viability of groups. In CHARMP2, such assessment informs the decision of converting (or not) the "loan" provided to the specific group to a "grant". While this may indicate some attention to the issue of sustainability, it is even more important to have a clarity of what is expected of these groups, and if they were to serve as a vehicle for economic and social empowerment of members, then, to have a strategy at the onset to lay the ground for better likelihoods of sustainability of such groups. 201. Despite the above, benefits from supporting beneficiaries' organizations are accrued and will continue at different scales and level (household or collective), ranging from skills learned from training, experience in income generating activities (individual or collective, success or failure), to develop into mature organizations that can play a greater role in their own development. 202. Benefits from physical infrastructure. There is a very good prospect for the rehabilitated irrigation facilities to be maintained. Under RaFPEP-IRPEP, the

132 For example, DTI's Shared Service Facility which provides small equipment and machinery to groups, or sub- projects identified under the Bottom-up Budgeting initiative. 133 Including insufficient livestock production support, urgent need for cash (addressed by selling of animals), a disease outbreak (poultry), and inability to afford the high cost of feeding and low profitability for piggery. 134 Issues mentioned included lack of availability of inputs; low quality of products; limited markets; lack of value addition; low technology usage and high labour input; and the limited financial resources of participants especially lack of working capital. The lack of easy opportunities, unwillingness and inexperience to borrow from the formal banking sector has curtailed the growth and diversification of off-farm livelihoods (NMCIREMP PCR).

58 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

collection rates of irrigation service fees in IAs have increased and their institutional and governance capacity has improved due to project support. The important risk, however, would be natural disasters that may cause damage beyond IAs' capacity and would require public support for repair. 203. Also for other types of public infrastructure, the likelihoods of sustainability appear to be good. These include roads, domestic water supply schemes, footbridge, footpath and community buildings. The positive factors include: (i) community ownership derived from the participatory process (needs identification and involvement in supervision of works135), resulting in voluntarism for operations, maintenance and minor repairs; (ii) systems of fees collection where relevant (e.g. for domestic water supplies, with Barangay Waterworks and Sanitation Associations); and (iii) commitment by LGUs. As for the last point, the NMCIREMP PCR indicated that a majority of the LGUs had also taken steps to adopt resolutions to provide O&M funds for the schemes. The PPA reported that whenever a repair is beyond the capacity of the barangays, the municipal LGUs take care to ensure that the facilities are in good working order, mainly due to the policy of converting grant funds to loans if the facilities are not maintained properly. The continuing maintenance with support by LGUs was confirmed during the CSPE team's visit to NMCIREMP area, including physical inspection, although limited. 204. Despite a reasonable likelihood of sustainability of various infrastructures, questions have been raised about the quality and durability in some cases. The NMCIREMP PPA noted that LGUs suggested the use of more durable construction material, particularly for roads affected by heavy rain. In CHARMP2, due to the ceiling on unit cost imposed by the existing Government standards (PHP 2.75 million per km for farm-to-market roads), only spot improvements were undertaken through concreting, while intermittent road sections were provided with gravel courses. These gravel sections were observed to be prone to early deterioration and were not appropriate in CAR’s steep and rolling terrain.136 At the same time, it was also reported that, to mitigate this situation, some LGUs were using resources and drawing on programmes of other national agencies to improve the farm-to-market roads, which is a positive sign.137 Given the country's vulnerability to natural disasters, it would be important to design infrastructure schemes and use materials which are appropriate and to institute a mechanism to set aside funds which can be used for the rehabilitation and repair of schemes for for emergency purposes. 205. Pro-poor institutions and approaches. In general, the prospect for sustainability of pro-poor institutions and approaches supported by the projects is favourable. In the CSPE's team's view, this is mainly due to overall supportive policy, legislative and institutional framework in the country. The rural sector assessment scores conducted for the purpose of IFAD's performance-based allocation system have consistently relatively high (4th for 2012-2014) in the region, after Thailand, China and Vietnam. 206. The projects have tended to work through LGUs and strengthen the collaboration between many government line departments. This is fully in line with the government's National Convergence Initiative. The focus on LGUs is also likely to continue through the "Bottom-up Budgeting" process.138 With this, aside from

135 In NMCIREMP, 160 Community-based Operation & Maintenance Monitoring and Evaluation Teams (COMMET) were formed at barangay level. CHARMP2 follows the similar concept and has supported Barangay Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Teams (BPMET). These names may be somewhat misleading, as these teams function mainly to supervise the infrastructure works, rather than participatory monitoring and evaluation of overall activities. 136 "Due to these steep gradients, the onset of even the first rain washes away the binders and the gravel surface." Supervision Mission Report. March 2015. CHARMP 2. IFAD. 137 CHARMP2 supervision mission report, March 2015. 138 This was introduced as a participatory "bottom-up" approach to the preparation of national budgets, to identify local priorities for poverty reduction initiatives and basic public projects. (Budget and Management Secretary Florencio B. Abad. Official Gazette. 19 January 2012.)

59 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

delivering basic social services, the LGUs are expected to "also become income- generating hubs for growth that develop industries to provide jobs and livelihood for their people."139 Since its introduction, the allocation for the Bottom-up Budgeting has been scaled up.140 207. All IFAD-financed projects have spent considerable efforts on strengthening and institutionalizing participatory development processes. There seems to be a reasonable basis and conducive environment to sustain such approaches, also with increased Government funding through LGUs. The appreciation for the participatory development approach promoted by the projects was mentioned by many working in the field. In a barangay previously supported by NMCIREMP, the barangay development plan prepared under the project still served as a reference document. In CHARMP2, investments identified under participatory project investment plans have been taken up by Government via bottom up budgeting. The challenge would be the human and financial resources, technical skills and time to undertake the participatory planning processes, for example, to update the plans without external project support. The lengthy and extended approach taken under CHARMP2 may be difficult to be sustained and replicated in LGUs in normal settings. 208. The CSPE team's interviews indicates that one of the key factors for enhancing the sustainability of improved institutions and approaches after the project closure is the strategic use of external partners and consultants, while the driving force rests with the respective implementing public agencies and LGUs. Collaboration with NGOs under NMCIREMP (for community mobilization) and in initial phase of CHARMP2, have worked reasonably well, but in general, the preference seems to be in-sourcing to retain the improved capacity, or directly contracting individuals, who are also absorbed into the system after the project, as has been the case in RuMEPP. 209. Sustainability of benefits – summary. In view of generally positive indications for sustainability of benefits in various areas, the CSPE team rates this criterion as satisfactory (5). It should be noted that this rating is justified, particularly if one lowers the expectation that may have been inappropriately developed, i.e. that beneficiary groups such as SHGs/LIGs would/should continue with collective enterprise activities. It should also be recognized that it would not be reasonable to expect rural infrastructures to be managed only by communities (or LGUs). B. Other performance criteria Innovation and scaling up 210. Innovation has benefitted ways of working on projects. The IFAD country office has some claims to innovation in the portfolio, and these are put forward in a recent publication.141 Nine candidates, including those emerging in grants, are listed: • Revitalizing indigenous leadership – a new initiative under NMCIREMP • The covenant approach to forest management - developed under CHARMP2 • Poverty Alleviation Fund – originated in NMCIREMP, adapted in CHARMP2 • School on air – adapted locally under CHARMP2 • Local farmers as organizers of IAs adapted under IRPEP • Community based seed systems – adapted by IRRI-CURE grant • Payment for watershed services – ICRAF origin, tested under RUPES grant • Farmer Business school – CIP origin, adapted by FoodStart grant • Participatory 3-dimensional mapping - adapted for ancestral domain mapping

139 Budget and Management Secretary Florencio B. Abad. http://www.dbm.gov.ph/?p=12158. March 2015. 140 It is reported that BuB has expanded in 2016 to include 14,300 poverty-reduction projects to cover for different social services in 1,590 cities and municipalities nationwide in the 2015 National Budget. (Official Gazette. March 25, 2015). 141 IFAD 2014, Moving up innovations to scale. IFAD, Manila

60 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

211. Of these, the first three are new initiatives developed and also adapted under the projects. The others all consist of adapting an existing idea to local circumstances. Often this was a direct project to project transfer, but in three instances the development was initiated by one of IFAD’s regional grants, an example of grant to loan project interaction described further in the next section. 212. The innovations illustrate some progress along pathways to scaling up.142 The country office claims some potential for scaling up in five of the examples (school on air, revitalizing indigenous leadership, the covenant approach, local farmers as organizers of irrigators' associations, and payment for watershed services). These examples are still in the learning phase of scaling up. Lessons have been developed and potential applications identified. 213. The other four are all said to have been scaled up, either by a government department or within an IFAD project. Analysis by the CSPE indicates that in two examples (poverty alleviation fund and farmer business school), IFAD helped create the institutional opportunity to scale up through LGUs working with projects or directly through CHARMP2, when the initiative came originally from CIP. In the other two examples, community-based seed systems and participatory 3- dimensional mapping, the innovations have been leveraged by the Department of Agriculture or by municipalities. 214. A report in 2010143 argued that to increase impact from scaling up, would require a better-resourced commitment and greater attention to policy dialogue, knowledge management and dissemination. The examples listed illustrate what has been possible, mainly through the knowledge management mechanisms described later (in the section on non-lending activities), without additional funding and policy dialogue. All are fairly small-scale and technical in nature and reflect what IFAD describes as scaling up activities rather than scaling up results. 215. The projects have been encouraged to share lessons and learn from each other's experience. Whilst the examples are fairly modest, they demonstrate effective use of project financing and knowledge management. Linkage of innovations, scaling- up and policy dialogue or engagement has been less effective, an issue discussed in more detail later in the report. Innovation and scaling up is rated as moderately satisfactory (4) Gender equality and women's empowerment 216. This section assesses the extent to which IFAD interventions contributed to better gender equality and women’s empowerment in terms of women’s access to and ownership of assets, resources and services, participation in decision making, as well as the workload balance between men and women. 217. There have been visible efforts on promoting gender equality and women's empowerment at the project level, resulting in notable achievements. This was the case even where the design documents were weak on gender issues (e.g. RuMEPP) and despite the fact that the situation of women in the Philippines is considered to be better than many other countries (see section II.A). For example, RaFPEP-IRPEP has been spearheading "Gender-Best Effectiveness Skills Training (G-BEST)" for staff involved in the projects and rolling out to beneficiary training provided to couples (husbands and wives). The country programme as a whole has been effective in highlighting the importance of gender issues also through what is called the IFAD Philippines Gender Network.

142 IFAD Post-2016 Implementation Brief 2: Scaling up results for impact on inclusive and sustainable rural transformation. 143 Part of a study by the Brookings Institution, Scaling up the Fight Against Rural Poverty, An Institutional Review of IFAD’s Approach, Global Economy and Development Working Paper 43, October 2010, reported in the COSOP MTR, para 137.

61 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

218. In addition, as observed from the CSPE's field visits, many staff of project offices, main government agencies in the field and LGUs are women. The RuMEPP PPE noted that according to the project record, at one time, 42 per cent of the 19 RuMEPP Provincial Officers of DTI were women. 219. Historical project status reports (regular self-assessment of project performance by IFAD) indicate that the portfolio performance has generally been rated very high. The average score of the country on Gender Focus was given a score of 5.06.144 The average country programme score on gender has been consistently higher than the APR average, sometimes significantly so.145 220. The level of inclusion of women in project activities has been very high, as shown by the sex-disaggregated data on beneficiaries. Women are often in majority in various groups of beneficiaries, in particular, SHGs and LIGs, as well as among existing and potential microenterprises who received business development services. Table 14 Women beneficiaries in projects and different interventions Project Reported number of Number of female % of female beneficiaries beneficiaries beneficiaries

NMCIREMP 47,131 23,660 50%

RuMEPP (BDS beneficiaries)* 32,318 25,487 79%

CHARMP2 45,000 21,525 48%

RaFPEP-IRPEP: IA membership 14,812 4,115 29%

RaFPEP-IRPEP: training participants** 17,856 7,303 41% * Not including beneficiaries who accessed only credits. ** All figures reported in the supervision mission report 2015, but the absolute numbers and the percentage do not tally. 221. Women's membership in IAs is relatively lower compared to other types of groups: 29 per cent of the total membership of 112 IAs supported by RaFPEP-IRPEP, while the monitoring data for CHARMP2 shows higher figure of 43 per cent. In RaFPEP- IRPEP, this figure has substantially increased from 12.8 per cent reported in 2012.146 The project reports and the discussions in the field with the CSPE team indicate that this has also been the results of raising awareness that members of IAs should be those farmers/cultivators who can actually attend meetings. 222. The projects provided men and women with opportunities to participate in and benefit from economic activities, apart from RaFPEP-RaSSFiP which was confined to one-time distribution of seeds. Women were in majority in many groups such as SHGs, LIGs and among microenterprises covered by RuMEPP. In RuMEPP, many of the enterprise models supported by DTI tended to be more interesting to women than to men, such as light food processing and handcrafts, while there were also other enterprises that are more attracting to men such as blacksmith. For new female microentrepreneurs (start-ups) who were either housewives with no or little income generating opportunities or engaged in odd or low-paid jobs such as barangay health workers, the participation in the project provided them new and better sources of incomes. 223. Women's participation in decision-making processes in different fora has improved, whether membership organizations or community gathering, due to a combination of encouragement of more participation, exposure and awareness raising, and better knowledge and skills, for example, as noted in NMCIREMP PPA and the CSPE team's observations in the field.

144 This is averaging the ratings of the four projects over the last five years from 2011 to 2015. 145 Portfolio Review Report. 2010-2014. October 2015. 146 RaFPEP 2012 supervision mission report.

62 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

224. The NMCIREMP PPA found that women who were formerly confined to tending children and doing routine household chores had assumed the role of becoming leaders of grass roots organizations, which in the past was the domain of men. The PPA found that there was a very strong, and growing, shift of women in leadership roles in the SHGs and community institutions, and in LGU leadership. Men interviewed by the PPA mission said that women were playing a greater role within their families and communities. 225. In IAs which used to be considered more as men's domain, along the increasing membership of women, there has also been a notable increase in women in leadership positions. In 2015, RaFPEP-IRPEP reported 32 per cent of those in leadership positions were women, surpassing the target of 30 per cent. Also, due to their reputation for reliability, often women have been selected as treasurers. Also in CHARMP2, high figures for women in leadership positions were reported for different types of groups: 45 per cent for community groups, 50 per cent for marketing groups, 49 per cent for infrastructure management groups.147 226. While no comprehensive data are available, women's increased involvement in productive activities has not brought up a concern about excessive workload for them, based on the RuMEPP PPE and the CSPE team's field visits. Indeed, women were satisfied with improved opportunities to spend their time on income generating activities. The DTI publication on the project experience also put forward case stories where women microentrepreneurs are helped by husbands and/or engage in enterprise activities together. Most of the women micro-entrepreneurs met by the PPE team also indicated that their husbands were supportive of their business activities and some actively participate and provide labour.148 RaFPEP-IRPEP promoted the approach of gender-related training taking husbands and wives together for the benefits of households. 227. There were also social benefits. NMCIREMP provided support to health and education. The PPA reported that school of indigenous knowledge, arts and traditions ("SIKAT") and literacy classes improved educational opportunities for girls. 228. Gender equality and women's empowerment – summary. Given the achievements, the CSPE rates this criterion as satisfactory (5). Environment and natural resources management, and adaptation to climate change 229. This section the extent to which the lending programme has contributed to building resilient livelihoods and ecosystems, and the contribution of the projects to reducing the negative impacts of climate change through dedicated adaptation or risk reduction measures. 230. Environment and natural resource management. Among the four projects completed or at advanced stage of implementation, NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 have had particularly a strong focus on NRM. Activities and sub-projects included resource management planning (i.e. watershed, lakeshore, coastal and upland areas), sustainable farming and fishery technologies, soil and water conservation techniques, fish sanctuary establishment, erosion control and slope protection and drainage systems, reforestation and agro-forestry. 231. In NMCIREMP, there were a number of achievements, but more could have been achieved had these activities been initiated earlier in the project, according to the PPA. The implementation of NRM activities in NMCIREMP was slow owing to the difficulty in identifying suitable subprojects, staff turnover and, in many areas, lower priority accorded. Still, 249 community institutions based resource management plans (e.g. for watersheds, lakeshore and coastal

147 CHARMP2 supervision mission report No. 3752-PH, June 2015. 148 RuMEPP project performance evaluation report.

63 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

development) were formulated, which led to an increase in the lakeshore and marine protected areas and reforested mangrove sites. Resource assessment and improvement of the environmental management plan for Lake Mainit was reported to have contributed to improved management of the lake’s resources.149 There were some examples of concrete benefits on the ground (e.g. mangrove rehabilitation, fish sanctuaries). The PPA noted that the most effective work of NMCIREMP was at the strategic level, where the project supported detailed planning work for resource management. By supporting multi-stakeholder planning activities, the project encouraged the introduction of resources into fragile ecosystem areas and helped in investment planning for future activities. 232. Concrete benefits from CHARMP2-supported NRM activities for households and communities are still to be realized. Under the project, 8,539 hectares of communal watershed have been reforested (with 9,457 people) and 2,166 hectares have been placed under agro-forestry (with 5,237 people). A “green covenant” has been signed between the LGU and the local communities to highlight and build on the traditional practices of sustainable use of natural resources (box 5). It will still take some time for the regeneration of some grasses and other tree species to lead to better conserved watersheds, or for fruit trees to provide incomes. Box 5 "Green covenant" approach

The ‘green covenant’ is a multi-party formal agreement among indigenous peoples' reforestation groups or people’s organisations, barangay officials, municipal and provincial LGUs. It aims at fortifying commitments to continue and sustain watershed conservation, reforestation and forest protection activities beyond project life. It was part of the CHAMRP2’s institutional arrangement with provincial and municipal LGU partners in the provision of reforestation and agro-forestry sub-project activities for participating people's organizations from local barangays and communities in the project. Before reforestation, people's organizations enter into a Comprehensive Site Development Covenant with the project and must complete the first training on nursery management and operation. Afterwards they prepare their respective work and financial plans as the basis for implementing their sub-project. People's organizations receive further training including financial management, forest management and other NRM topics such as adoption of ‘traditional’ forest protection, enforcement and rehabilitation practices of local indigenous peoples' groups. Maps were prepared for these reforestation sites. These arrangements were later presented to the municipal LGUs for integration and adoption to local plans and subsequently for support from the provincial LGUs. The ‘green covenant’ outlines the “collective responsibilities” and commitment of different parties towards restoration of the communal watershed/ancestral lands within the identified barangay under the project’s reforestation programme. The ‘green covenant’ triggered commitments from the 5 provincial governments (i.e. Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt. Province) with the formulation of LGU agroforestry and reforestation sustainability plans that provided additional PHP 14.8 million funding support to sustain reforestation and watershed conservation activities by the indigenous peoples' reforestation groups in the area even after project support. The sustainability plans which serves as a continuation of their ‘green covenants’ with the local stakeholders will guide the Provincial LGU in sustaining the agroforestry and reforestation subprojects and replicate lessons learned in CHARMP2 implementation. The innovative aspect of this ‘green covenant’ which is a precondition for the implementation of the project’s reforestation sub-projects is that it facilitates the recognition of the ancestral lands/claims of indigenous peoples while implementing watershed conservation and forest protection activities, including indigenous forestry management systems, and securing the commitment and support of LGUs to the indigenous peoples' communities conservation initiatives. The ‘green covenant’ also showed the value of participatory governance in responding to priority local community needs and improving government delivery of basic services in the community.

149 NMCIREMP PPA report (2010)

64 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

The ‘green covenant’ also ensured ‘community and local ownership’ under a ‘co- management’ arrangement between indigenous peoples' communities and LGUs of watershed management and conservation activities within ancestral lands. Through the formal and institutional engagement and long-term commitment of provincial and local LGUs in community-based forest management, the ‘green covenant’ elevated the ‘co- management’ approach in the community-based forest management strategy adopted by the country in 1995 under Executive Order 263 as the Philippines’ national strategy for sustainable forest management. As such, the ‘green covenant’ could be used as a template to improve the implementation of the DENR’s national greening programme that was started in 2013 and which also relies on community participation and mobilization in implementing and managing watershed conservation, reforestation and forest protection to 1.0 million hectares of the country’s denuded forestlands

233. Given the strong focus but modest achievements especially also in earlier projects (e.g. NMCIREMP), the performance in the area of environment and natural resource management is rated as moderately satisfactory (4). 234. Adaptation to climate change. The dimension of climate change adaptation was not explicitly identified in earlier projects, but a number of activities undertaken are relevant. Such activities have included training and capacity building of farmers on sustainable NRM practices, soil and water conservation techniques and disaster risk reduction. FFS organized under NMCIREMP, CHARMP2, and RaFPEP-IRPEP also covered as crop rotation, palay check, water control and management, etc. which were identified as part of climate adaptation measures for agriculture and food security under the Philippine’s National Framework Strategy on Climate Change. The earlier projects were not explicit on climate change, also because IFAD developed a Climate Change Strategy in 2010. 235. Discussion of the CSPE mission with the engineering staff of CHARMP2 and LGUs indicated that for better adaptation to climate change, the design and construction of rural infrastructure sub-projects were strengthened through use of stronger concrete mix for roads, drainage and storm run-offs, retaining walls and ripraps, use of ‘coconet’ or bio-engineering for slope protection, concreting of outlet canals, etc. to minimize potential damages that might be caused by flash-flooding, rain- induced landslides and soil erosion brought about by droughts. However, given the budget ceilings established for the roads, this could not be undertaken in all cases. Discussions with the NIA staff and representatives of IAs in RaFPEP-IRPEP indicated that in the construction of some of the irrigation channels specific techniques for enhanced resilience to weather changes were also used where feasible such as grouted riprap scour protection works and planting of “mahogany” trees along the riverbanks. Adoption of bio-engineering methods like the use of “coconets” and planting of vitiver grass for erosion control along steep slopes was also used. 236. Projects have not systematically recorded the impact of their investments in making poor households more adept at dealing with climate change. The NMCIREMP PPA noted that with regard to climate change, there has been an increasing awareness in terms of its effects on the country. The CSPE mission found a similar awareness of the impact of droughts, typhoons, pest infestation in all project areas visited. 237. Based on some emerging efforts and practices, but given opportunities to address this issue more systematically, also by helping poor households cope with vulnerability and climate risk livelihoods diversification, this criterion is rated as moderately satisfactory (4). C. Overall project portfolio 238. The project performance has been uneven: between different stages within the same project (e.g. CHARMP2), different time on the same theme (e.g. indigenous peoples' issues), and/or between projects. Areas where the projects consistently

65 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

performed relatively well are support to rural infrastructure, capacity building of rural poor and their organizations, participatory development processes and empowerment, support to pro-poor institutions and policies, and gender issues. The portfolio has also benefited from good collaboration with grant-funded projects. The prospect for sustainability of benefits is also generally good. 239. A number of factors have presented challenges to the project performance. Design weaknesses in some cases (e.g. under-design, wrong assumptions) resulted in slow implementation (with the need to improve implementers' understanding and elaborate specific actions), lost time in implementation (by requiring re-design later on) or missed opportunities to better address the issue (e.g. RuMEPP not paying sufficient attention to the quality of financial services beyond providing credit lines). Implementation delays at initial stage in some projects pushed many activities to a later stage of the project life, thus reducing what could have been achieved and reducing the level of efforts that would have needed over longer time. The project investments have been spread across geographical areas and with relatively low intensity of investment, it may be difficult to expect impact on poor rural households on any appreciable scale. 240. Taking into consideration the assessment for different evaluation criteria, the overall project portfolio achievement is rated as moderately satisfactory (4). Table 15 Assessment of project portfolio achievement

Criteria CSPE rating

Rural poverty impact 4

Project performance 4 Relevance 4 Effectiveness 4 Efficiency 4 Sustainability of benefits 5

Other performance criteria Gender equality and women's empowerment 5 Innovation and scaling up 4 Environment and natural resources management 4 Adaptation to climate change 4

Overall project portfolio achievement 4

66 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Key points  The project objectives and thrusts have been well aligned with the government and IFAD strategies. But there are some areas of weaknesses in design in some cases, for example, with wrong or uncertain assumptions, under-design, complex design, and lack of clarity in the target group and impact pathways.  A question is raised as to whether IFAD is well-placed to respond to emergency situation in the way it has done in the Philippines, i.e. with short-term measures (agricultural input distribution) but with procurement challenges and eventual delays in what was meant to be "rapid". IFAD corporate guidance has emphasized its role in supporting long-term efforts.  The achievements relative to the objectives have been most notable and visible in relation to support to irrigated agriculture, rural infrastructure, improved participation of communities in development planning and implementation and strengthening their organizations, though with varied performance for different types of organizations.  The approach for and effectiveness of group-based approach to increasing livelihoods and enterprise opportunities has not been carefully examined.  There are a number of positive indications for efficiency, including relatively low proportion of project management costs, high level of funds utilization despite initial delays. The weakest area with regard to efficiency has been considerable time lags between design, approval and effectiveness, and delays in disbursement and implementation, especially in initial years.  The impact of the portfolio has been notable in particular with regard to institutions and policies, and human and social capital and empowerment. The performance on gender equality and women's empowerment has been strong. There are also positive indications on agricultural productivity and food security, especially through irrigation development. While there are certainly cases of significant contribution to household incomes (e.g. through microenterprise development, income generating activities), it is difficult to be conclusive on the extent and magnitude due to insufficient data.  Prospect of sustainability of benefits is relatively good, in particular with regard to irrigators' associations, some people's organizations, physical infrastructure and impact on institutions and policies.

67 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

IV. Non-lending activities 241. Non-lending activities describes those actions supported by IFAD and the government that are not directly planned or organised under a loan project, but which nevertheless are instrumental in helping to enhance the programme’s development effectiveness. The assessment covers knowledge management, policy dialogue, and partnership building. It also includes a review of a sample of global, regional and country-specific grants. 242. The importance of non-ending activities is evident in the country programme theory of change developed for this CSPE, which states: "Direct investment in partnership with the GOP, supported by some selected regional grants would deliver innovative programmes targeted at different groups in poor rural communities. Structured annual programmes of knowledge management and joint programme reviews would provide substantive material for policy dialogue, with the aim of successful investments being scaled up by the government and/or development partners. It is a knowledge-driven partnership strategy with a discrete set of independent investments." 243. This theory gives rise to four key areas of enquiry for the CSPE: (i) to what extent has the loan programme successfully supported dialogue and discussion on the policy issues that affect the IFAD target group and delivered measurable outcomes; (ii) have the complementary grants generated useful findings to help improve implementation; (iii) has information been disseminated and taken up by development partners; and (iv) has experience gained in IFAD-financed projects influenced governments’ policies and programmes? A. Knowledge management 1. Knowledge management is an important part of IFAD’s way of working. IFAD developed the Knowledge Management Strategy in 2007150 and knowledge management received multiple mentions in the 2009 COSOP, as an element of IFAD’s comparative advantage and as a cross-cutting issue. 2. In the IFAD Philippines country programme, a comprehensive approach for knowledge management was established. Firstly, by the appointment of a country programme management facilitator/knowledge management officer, a post later transformed to country programme officer; secondly, instituting Annual Country Programme Reviews (ACPoR) plus a mid-term and annual COSOP implementation progress report; and thirdly, contributions from the country programme management team. An additional innovative provision came in the form of a regional programme, Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia/Pacific Region. This evolved into the Knowledge and Learning Market (KLM) and subsequently from 2014, termed as KLM–Policy Engagement (KLM-PE). 3. Eight ACPoR meetings have been held between 2008 and 2016. Two members of the CSPE attended two days of the 8th ACPoR in January 2016 and observed presentations and discussions. Records of the proceedings and participants provide a comprehensive and valuable picture of the way the country portfolio has been managed. 4. ACPoR meetings have enabled cross-project learning and exchange of practices. The meetings have provided a forum to: (i) share best practices and experiences for lessons learning and scaling up; and (ii) discuss about issues and constraints in the implementation of projects and agree on practical recommendations and follow up actions to improve the design and implementation. Specific examples are discussions at the 2009 ACPoR which were instrumental in the redesign of CHARMP2’s credit programme into the Livelihood Assistance Fund

150 The KM strategy highlighted the following elements: (i) strengthening knowledge-sharing and learning processes; (ii) equipping IFAD with a more supportive knowledge-sharing and learning infrastructure; (iii) fostering partnerships for broader knowledge-sharing and learning; and (iv) promoting a supportive knowledge-sharing and learning culture.

68 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

patterned after the Poverty Alleviation Fund of NMCIREMP151; In 2009-2010, CHARMP2 studied the experience of NMCIREMP on indigenous peoples, particularly on the process of processing CADCs into CADTs. 5. ACPoR meetings have created linkages for grants to support loan projects. A case study analysis of the ACPoR,152 identified a significant role of promoting complementarity between grant projects in support of loan projects, contributing directly to the latter’s effectiveness in delivering outcomes. The main examples relate to work under CHARMP2, with CIP-FoodStart on Farmer Business School, IRRI-CURE on cataloguing and developing the value chain for heirloom rice varieties in the Cordillera region, and the introduction by ICRAF-RUPES of the “payment for environmental services” scheme. These are discussed further in a later section under grants. 6. Analysis of attendance in ACPoR meetings over the whole period shows a consistent pattern: (i) regular participation by representatives of currently active loans and selected grants153; (ii) participation by Rome-based and country office IFAD staff; and (iii) some participation by Government departmental staff, primarily DA and DAR, less frequently NEDA and once recently by the Department of Budget Management. In 2011 and 2016, Under Secretaries from DA and DAR participated for some of the programme. 7. The ACPoR meetings have not provided - and were not intended to provide - a setting for IFAD to convey policy-related issues to senior officials. A review of attendance demonstrates clearly that the ACPoR is a tool to help improve implementation and share lessons among loan and grant projects. With the exception of the two widely-spaced visits by Under Secretaries there is no or very limited participation either by senior decision-makers or relevant other offices of government or departments (e.g. NCIP, DENR). The ACPoR is effective as a medium to share experience and results. It is not a means of initiating policy dialogue with a wider audience in government or among development partners. 8. Structure and design have remained relatively constant over the period. Reports have not, however, with changing format and level of details that has reduced comparability of information. Duration has stabilised at a typical two days most years, having started at four. Since 2014 a quarterly programme update meeting has been held to follow-up on issues from the review, though meetings have generally been less frequent than planned. 9. Knowledge and Learning Markets (KLMs) are annual, two-day public events that bring together IFAD stakeholders for the IFAD country programme in the Philippines (NGOs, private sector, research institutions, government, project staff) and the general public and showcase the activities, accomplishments and products of IFAD-supported projects and assisted communities. KLMs consist of exhibits, product displays, interactive workshops, testimonies, cultural performances, and press conferences. As the KLM was promoted as a means to introduce the projects to the general public, the annual event was for the most part held in shopping malls and hotels,154 where “walk-in” participants were welcomed. 10. KLMs have developed into meetings that discuss and make recommendations on policy-related issues. KLMs have been held annually since 2007. Table 16 lists the hosts and themes for each year. From a simple knowledge-sharing event, the KLM has thus evolved into "a policy developing session."155 Three of the nine KLMs organised so far produced resolutions or

151 Source: ACPoR 2016 Report 152 Antonio B. Quizon (2016) Case study of the PH Annual Country Portfolio Review (ACPoR) 153 Namely, CIP FoodSTART, IRRI-CURE and ICRAF-RUPES/ClimateSmart, HARP, MTCP and Athika. 154 All KLMs were held in metro Manila, with exception for 2011 (KLM held in Baguio City) 155 IFAD. 2015. A decade of sharing and learning: IFAD Knowledge and Learning Market in the Philippines.

69 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

statements that were presented to representatives of policymakers for action. Thus the KLM evolved into the KLM-PE (where PE stands for "policy engagement"). Table 16 Knowledge and Learning Markets Year Host secretariat Theme Policy products

2007 Asia Council for People’s Culture Supporting Community Initiatives -

2008 Asian Farmers’ Alliance (AFA) Sustaining community practices - for food security

2009 Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC) The rural poor in times of crisis -

2010 DAR and NEDA Shared resources, Shared - development

2011 Department of Agriculture, Gender and Youth: Innovative Manifesto of a collective call to action National Commission on the Role waves in rural development to further advance on gender equality of Filipino women and women empowerment alongside rural development signed

2012 IFAD-supported projects A boost to rural productivity -

2013 CHARMP2 The “I” of the Cordillera ("I" in the Policy sessions organised on (i) first two sessions represented the indigenous NRM practices in the “indigenous communities” that Cordillera; (ii) climate change brought out and nurtured the mitigation and adaptation in the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Cordillera; (iii) green and Practices livelihood/enterprise options in the Cordillera; (iv) models for scaling-up

2014 FAO, DAR, DA, AFA/PAKISAMA, Strengthening resilient Family- 11 policy briefs related to the Philippine Farmers Forum Based Agricultural Enterprises International Year of Family Farming (PhilFaFo), AsiaDHRAA/ (IYFF) PhilDHRAA, ANGOC, AgriCORD Philippines Declaration of Support PH Synergy Group and Commitment to Family Farming

2015 FAO, DAR, DA, AFA/PAKISAMA, IYFF, Partnership for Food - PhilFaFo, AsiaDHRAA/ Security Nutrition and Climate PhilDHRAA, ANGOC, AgriCORD, change PH Synergy Group, We Effect

11. In a similar way to the ACPoR, documentation of the events has been inconsistent, without a list of presenters/participants and there has been little direct participation by top-level officials. Unlike the ACPoR, which is funded directly by project budgets, the KLM has no continuity or assurance of budget support and has relied on ad hoc co-funding by several partners.156 12. According to the IFAD Publication “A decade of sharing and learning: IFAD Knowledge and Learning Market in the Philippines” directors and senior staff of projects and agencies, pointed out that although interesting, KLMs seem mainly to be a promotion event. They suggested KLMs should maximise the presence of top- level officials and provide the opportunity for more serious interaction. Experience with both the ACPoR and KLM-PE indicates that they do not provide an effective forum for policy dialogue. 13. In addition to ACPoR and KLM-PE, another notable example of a knowledge management platform is the IFAD Philippines Gender Network. This is a network of gender focal points from IFAD-funded projects, civil society organizations, and implementing agencies in the Philippines created mainly to provide a forum where gender focal persons discuss and analyze gender issues and formulate recommendations; create a venue for gender sharing among peers and learning from gender experts and resource persons, listen to rural voices from the field to learn from their experiences and establish a support network group on

156 Interview with country programme officer.

70 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

gender to help each other in mainstreaming gender equality in IFAD-assisted projects.157 14. In support of knowledge management networks, fora and mechanisms are a range of on-line platforms and instruments:  IFAD Asia/Pacific Newsletter (https://www.ifad.org/newsletter/pi/27.htm)  Social reporting blog (http://ifad-un.blogspot.it/search/label/apr09)  IFAD Asia (http://asia.ifad.org/)  Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/seahubmanager?ref=br_rs; https://www.facebook.com/groups/ifadasia/?ref=br_rs)  Rural Poverty Portal 15. On-line media have proved popular for communication and discussions but access problems and limitations in search facilities have reduced their usefulness. The IFAD Asia portal and Facebook pages are regularly updated by communication products, photos, news and articles. Nonetheless, in the IFAD Asia Portal, while blogs and discussion sections are quite rich and dynamic, the number of documents is limited, and the portal search facility less efficient than just searching the title on the internet. It seems that documents related to projects and initiatives are not regularly uploaded. In some cases links bring up empty pages. The 2012 Country Programme Issues sheet on knowledge management mentions that the IFAD-Asia portal has not been vigorously used by projects and partners as they encountered problems in accessing the portal. 16. IFAD's internal reviews have highlighted two or three topics that have seen prominent knowledge products, including integration of the school of indigenous knowledge, arts and traditions ("SIKAT") curriculum into the Department of Education; the adoption of the NMCIREMP’s poverty alleviation fund (PAF) within CHARMP2; the process of formulation of ADSDPP; and the RuMEPP’s twin approach of combining micro-financing and provision of business development services to micro-entrepreneurs.158 There is no evidence to indicate whether dissemination on line has been more effective or brought a wider audience than discussion at KLM or ACPoR. 17. Assessment summary. Knowledge management was well set out as an integrated part of the country programme. There were clear objectives, and structured mechanisms which IFAD used effectively. Programme reviews and KLM proved popular with implementers as a means of sharing experience and enabled cross fertilisation of ideas. The main missing element was a way of channelling findings to help inform policy discussions. If that had been achieved knowledge management would merit a highly satisfactory rating, but as it is the rating is satisfactory (5). B. Policy dialogue 18. "Policy dialogue" has been an area of attention at IFAD, but recently there has been a shift to use the term "policy engagement". According to a recent publication159, a policy engagement is "a process for IFAD to get involved with partner governments and other national stakeholders to influence or inform policy priorities, as well as the design and implementation of public policies that shape the economic opportunities for large numbers of rural people to move out of poverty. IFAD sometimes participates directly in policy dialogue; more often, it facilitates discussion among national stakeholders, strengthens their capacity, and brings evidence to the table that can inform discussion".

157 IFAD Asia. 158 Country Programme Issues sheet 2010 and 2013-2014 159 IFAD. 2013. County-level policy engagement: opportunity and necessity. https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/2f7ad2b7-e833-412a-aba3-8c0c94f2d99a

71 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

19. The need for policy dialogue was signalled in the 2009 COSOP. Policy dialogue objectives are addressed twice in the 2009 COSOP. Firstly, quite ambitious objectives are set to focus on a number of policy linkages and dimensions that are directly related to loan projects:160 (i) land tenure and titling; (ii) microenterprise promotion and microfinance delivery; (iii) devolution and decentralisation; and (iv) remuneration for environmental services 20. The intended mechanism is also well stated, that ‘Through a series of participatory processes involving stakeholders, including small policy focus groups and annual stakeholder workshops, key policy issues and recommendations will be identified and channelled to the national level to facilitate their inclusion in national policy dialogue and the policymaking process.’ In current IFAD terminology this is policy engagement. 21. All four topics have remained relevant throughout the COSOP period. They are taken up in the 2014 International Year of Family Farming policy agenda that surfaced from the 2014 KLM-PE. The participatory processes were implemented primarily through the ACPoR/KLM-PE process and in the views of respondents have become a valuable medium of discussion. But there is little evidence that these mechanisms have led to the issues being included in national policy dialogue and the policymaking process, even though there are also cases where the projects - in the context of their implementation – contributed to influencing policy issues, for example, related to microenterprise development through RuMEPP. 22. The activities contributed to policy engagement, although of the four priority areas quoted above (paragraph 262), only one, contribution to devolution was mostly achieved and one, microenterprise promotion and microfinance partly achieved. Objectives related to land titling were over-ambitious in the light of subsequent performance of government agencies, NCIP and the Land Registry. Research was carried out on remuneration for environmental services but policy engagement has been less than expected, partly owing to protracted delays in start-up of INREMP. 23. A second set of objectives followed those in the COSOP as mentioned above, still in the section of "policy linkages". ‘Underlying all these policy efforts is the need to facilitate the Government’s continuing engagement in agricultural and rural sectors in the face of fiscal constraints that might otherwise force it to prioritize other sectors. To this end, efforts will address the possible consequences of: (i) restructuring and rationalizing of the Government; (ii) fiscal constraints leading to competition for limited government counterpart funding, thereby jeopardizing implementation of some rural sector projects; (iii) policy reversals by newly elected governments; and (iv) external shocks. To face these situations, a sufficient degree of flexibility will be built into the design of projects under the country programme.’161 There is no discussion of context to support this agenda, nor explanation or interpretation of what ‘efforts’ refers to or what ‘degree of flexibility’ actually means. 24. In March 2012, IFAD co-sponsored a policy forum with DA on "Broad-based Strategies for Food Security and the Changing World Food Markets", to guide the government’s a food staples sufficiency policy towards a responsive food policy that accounts for the welfare of local food producers and consumers while addressing changes in the world food markets. A large number of senior government staff and representatives from multilateral and bilateral development agencies participated in the forum. In the COSOP MTR 2012 the forum was reported to have provided new analysis and policy options for the government. 25. Policy engagement has successfully brought forward issues from project experience. Despite the limited progress on issues identified in advance in the

160 EB 2009/97/R.12/Rev.1, para 43 161 Ibid para 44.

72 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

COSOP, other topics have been indicated in the IFAD's self-assessment as areas where policy engagement arising from practical project experience has been formative:162  Progress to improve NG/LGU cost sharing arrangements which unblocked constraints on rural infrastructure in CHARMP2 from a review commissioned by IFAD in 2011;  Management of buffer stocks of rice seeds by the Department of Agriculture arising from experience initially with a Disbursement Voucher System under RaFPEP. DA is reported at considering to replicate their rice seeds buffer stock to other crops;  Creation of a 10-point policy agenda in support of family farming, subsequently adopted by DA and DAR;  Effective cost recovery from IAs amortisation;  “Go Negosyo” support to micro-enterprise by DTI (arising from from RuMEPP);  A model mechanism for supervision at community level that started as Community-based Operation & Maintenance Monitoring and Evaluation Teams (COMMET) in NMCIREMP and has been adapted as Barangay Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Teams (BPMET) in CHARMP2. 26. Furthermore, as a more recent example in relation to INREMP, IFAD has been working with ADB and the DENR to address implementation bottlenecks which include policy issues with implications beyond the project, such as safeguard procedures. The proactive role of IFAD in such problem-solving support is acknowledged also given that it is a minor co-financier and officially not a supervising institution. 27. CSPE was able to confirm the validity of the issues listed here. With the exception of the family farming policy agenda, they are characterized as lessons and good practices arising from interventions. They provide potential leverage for IFAD to engage with the Government on the design and implementation of relevant rural and agricultural development initiatives. But they reflect largely tools and techniques – evidence about activities rather than development results. 28. IFAD has not identified or promoted opportunities for wider or structured dialogue on sectoral issues, while there have been cases of project interventions and support providing entry points to broad policy issues. Senior officials in DA and DAR welcome the circulation of lessons from project experience but do not see a role for IFAD to engage in policy dialogue at a more strategic level. On the other hand, some other informants believe that IFAD should engage more in policy discussions as befits the relationship between a small donor with a distinctive focus on poor and vulnerable people, with a middle income country. Opportunities for policy leverage that IFAD could take advantage of are limited, but they have improved by a long-term engagement with the agricultural sector and by the establishment of a country office. The CSPE considers that the achievements of the ACPoR and KLM-PE have been enhanced by the support of the country office. But IFAD has not identified a channel or mechanism for wider dialogue on sectoral issues with government. 29. There is no regular national forum at which IFAD can introduce policy- relevant information from project experience. A rather wide ranging and diverse set of meetings take place involving government and donors each year. There is no fixed pattern of thematic or sector coordination meetings. The main channels for dialogue are:  Periodic meetings with donors hosted by NEDA, linked to discussion on portfolio performance, pipeline planning etc. The country programme officer

162 Reported in CSPE Self-Assessment on non-lending activities and the COSOP.

73 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

based in Manila represents IFAD in those meetings and, for example, in the Joint Analytical Workshops. Most recently, at the occasion of the Philippines' participation in the conduct of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation 2nd Monitoring Round, data on IFAD assistance was submitted and incorporated.  A Sustainable Rural Development Working Group (co-chaired by DA and GIZ) under the occasional ‘Philippines Development Forum’ (a successor to the Philippines Consultative Group) has met with declining frequency in recent years; four times in 2013; twice in 2013; and once in 2015. There is a testimony that IFAD was a regular and active participant in the working group including on the discussion on upland and land governance, but the 2013-2015 progress report on the working group163 noted the diminishing participation of ADB, EU and IFAD for the year 2014. The PDF met in 2014 for a special session on the Bangsamoro; the previous formal meeting was in 2013 in Davao City. The last published record of a meeting of the SRDWG is 2009. IFAD did not attend.  Among development partners IFAD is a member of the UN Country Team and the country programme officer attends when time is available. There is a UN Mindanao working group, which the country programme officer does not attend. According to FAO an informal meeting of donors about Mindanao takes place from time to time.  Among the Rome-based agencies, FAO and WFP have a joint lead in a UN Agriculture and Food Security Cluster meeting in which IFAD does not participate. 30. The absence of a regular sector meeting is significant as it places greater emphasis on events that IFAD can directly manage such as ACPoR and KLM, and on the opportunities for the country programme officer (based in Manila) or country programme manager to interact directly with senior decision-makers and influential entities. 31. Assessment summary. The original objectives for policy dialogue set by IFAD were overambitious, both in terms of the scope and envisaged approach and process, and relied too much on the expectation that issues emerging from the ACPoR and KLM would be channelled into a higher level dialogue. In the absence of a regular national forum, IFAD needed to create opportunities. The only example of that was the 2012 policy forum on food security. Without a routine mechanism, the policy linkage objectives in the COSOP were unrealistic. The programme has successfully brought forward lessons from implementation experience, which the knowledge management process was effective at disseminating. They were useful but largely reflect tools and techniques. The performance is assessed as moderately satisfactory (4). C. Partnership-building 32. Working in partnerships is featured prominently in the COSOP as an element of IFAD’s comparative advantage and as a specific objective. The concept is used loosely to describe any entity that IFAD works or shares knowledge with. As an IFI with relatively small resources, leverage through other organisations is a logical strategy and the COSOP makes appropriate proposals for continuing relationships with government, multilateral and bilateral development partners and civil society organisations. The Philippines has recorded the highest average score of 5.5 in the 2014 Client Survey for country ownership, alignment and harmonization.164 This continues a rising trend since 2010.

163 2013-2015 Progress Report: Philippine Development Forum - Working Group on Sustainable Rural Development. 164 Client Survey 2014, report by IFAD.

74 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

33. Extensive partnerships exist with government. A wide range of partnerships has been pursued, corresponding to specific objectives in the portfolio. With Government the country programme has established partnerships with a large number of implementing partners based on its analysis that the poverty reduction challenge in the country required a combined effort of a range of Government agencies. The projects have tended to work through LGUs and strengthen the collaboration between many Government line departments in support of the National Convergence Initiative. NMCIREMP, CHARMP2 and RaFPEP enhanced the collaboration between DAR, DA, NCIP, DENR, Agricultural Training Institute and the provincial and local Governments. RuMEPP enhanced the collaboration between the Small Business Corporation and DTI. In addition to the agencies involved in implementation, supervision and follow-up missions for the ongoing projects are conducted in partnership with NEDA, which provides its M&E staff as mission members.165 34. Partnerships with civil society organizations have been generally good in particular through grants, ACPoR and KLM-PE. A regional grant to support farmers' organizations in the region has been led from the Philippines (i.e. Asian Farmers' Alliance). Five of the nine KLM events held since 2008 have had NGOs partners as the secretariat or joint secretariat. The KLM platform created by IFAD enabled a consortium of farmer organizations and other civil society organizations promote a policy agenda to the Government for the International Year of Family Farming. 35. Collaboration with international agricultural research institutions has been largely positive and brought benefits to the portfolio performance. Three of the nine examples of innovations (discussed in section III.B.) were developed over several phases of grant support to CGIAR institutions with programmes in the Philippines (namely, CIP, IRRI and ICRISAT). Those same teams have become active participants in the annual ACPoR and KLM meetings and hosted the ACPoR in 2012. In-country presence of these institutions (for IRRI, the country hosts the headquarters) are likely to be the main factor for successful collaboration. 36. Donor partnership development has been less than planned in the COSOP. Partnership with donors was identified in the COSOP in connection with co- financing and leveraging of additional resources. Plans were set to work with ADB under COSOP strategic objective 1 (SO1), for CHARMP2 and INREMP; the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GIZ), USAID and CIDA for agribusiness support services to MSMEs under SO2; and UNDP and FAO, especially on fisheries and other natural resource management activities under SO3. There were also ideas to try and develop partnerships with JICA and WFP. 37. Of these items: IFAD is co-funding with ADB (as well as the Global Environmental Facility and the Climate Change Fund of ADB) on INREMP but at the time of the CSPE evaluation was still at an initial stage; there were no collaborations with GIZ, USAID and CIDA under SO2; there are no practical collaborations with UNDP or FAO and FishCORAL has in effect not started implementation. No new initiatives have been developed with JICA or WFP. 38. Partnerships with the private sector have not materialized. Despite the promotion of value chain development, interaction with the private sector has been limited to a few examples under CHARMP2. These have potential to improve marketing but are highly localized and interaction has not developed beyond specific project activities. Opportunities for partnerships with the private sector players have not been pursued in a strategic manner, while CONVERGE design envisages such partnerships.

165 COSOP MTR Report, para 118

75 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

39. Assessment. Woking in partnership is a core element in IFAD’s approach and expectations were set high in the COSOP. The programme has worked widely and extensively with government but has not been able to forge and develop relationships with other development partners. This is evident in the limited involvement of other partners in the ACPoR or KLM processes. There is a danger such isolated working will reduce opportunities for cross-fertilisation of ideas and experience. The intentions were very relevant but implementation has not been so effective and the assessment is moderately satisfactory (4). D. Grants 40. Since 2007, IFAD has financed 27 grants covering the Philippines with a value of US$28.66 million since 2007. Of these, two were grants directly co-financing loans;166 six were country specific grants of which five averaged $250,000 plus one grant for rehabilitation after typhoon Haiyan for US$4 million; and 19 global or regional grants which cover multiple countries including the Philippines. Of the 19, six appear as two phases and five were closely associated with loan projects. See Annex V for a complete list. Three country specific grants and three regional grants have been reviewed in more detail (table 17). Table 17 List of six grants reviewed in detail Name Grant Objectives Linkages (period)

Regional grants Enabling Poor Rice Farmers to US$1.5m Enable farmers in unfavourable rice CHARMP2 through an Improve Livelihoods and (2009-14) environments, including IFAD-supported Heirloom Rice project in Overcome Poverty in South and investment projects, to access rice partnership with DA- Southeast Asia through the US$1m technologies that sustainably improve PhilRICE. Consortium for Unfavourable (2014-18) productivity Rice Environments (CURE 1&2) Root and Tuber Crops Research US$1.45m To promote the role of root and tuber crops RTC in CHARMP2, plus and Development Programme for (2011-15) (RTC) in the farming systems of the Asia- advice and training on Food Security in Asia and Pacific Pacific region in building a more diverse and value chain development. Region (FoodStart; FoodStart+) US$0.2m robust regional food system in the face of RTC support to (2015-) possible shocks and climate change. FishCORAL. Programme on Rewards for Use US$1.4 m To develop new mechanisms for enhanced Case study at Bakun of and Shared Investment in Pro- (2003-06) livelihood and resource security of poor watershed, Benguet poor Environmental Services upland communities in Asia through Province, CAR under (RUPES I & II) US$1.5m recognizing and rewarding the upland poor CHARMP2. Support to (2008-13) for environmental services. design of INREMP.

Country specific Grants Results-based Monitoring and US$0.2m Strengthen capacities of selected GOP TA fits with IFAD and Evaluation for NEDA (2010-13) officials involved with project GOP MOU, signed in implementation, monitoring and evaluation 2008 for the conduct of (M&E) and reporting of results or outcomes joint supervisions and of national development programs. implementation support missions. Rapid Response to Post Typhoon US$4m To enable rice based smallholder farmers The grant was claimed to Haiyan Agriculture Rehabilitation (2014-16) affected by Typhoon Haiyan in regions VI fit with IFAD Policy on Programme (HARP) and VIII to jump start resumption of rice Crisis Prevention and production in the cropping season of Apr- Recovery and IFAD June 2014 and restore their livelihoods, by Guidelines for Disaster provision of good-quality seeds and fertilizer. Early Recovery. Scaling up initiatives in Mobilizing US$0.5m To increase savings and investments of Supportive of national Migrant Resources towards (2014-16) Overseas Filipino Workers originating from policy on remittances. Agriculture Development In the pilot provinces in agri-based social Philippines167 enterprises that would create jobs and economic opportunities.

166 In addition, RaSSFIP received an EU grant of $13.14 mllion which was channeled through IFAD. 167 Originally funded by a Financing Facility for Remittances - FFR Window 3 for $250,000.

76 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

41. The six grants have interesting characteristics related to IFAD’s country programme. Of the three regional grants, none were planned as part of the country strategy but all bring a strong link to the country programme albeit in different ways. The country specific grants illustrate ways in which IFAD has tried to respond to national issues. 42. Opportunistic linkages were developed between two of the three regional grants and the loan projects, arising from interaction at ACPoR and KLM meetings. Both the CURE and FoodStart grants had an unexpectedly greater influence on projects, primarily CHARMP2. CURE helped CHARMP2 develop a strategy and technical support to Heirloom Rice, which was promoted as an income generating activity. The FoodStart team helped CHARMP2 build capacity and practical intervention models for value chain analysis and support at a time when the project was struggling to implement the approach. 43. RUPES I and II were directly relevant to NRM objectives and overlapped with the closing years of CHARM1. An action research case study in seven barangay of Bakun Municipality, where the first CADT was issued in the Cordillera, looked at ways to change the relationship of local communities with hydropower generating companies through recognition of the community role in stewardship of the environment and natural resources. The grant closed before a final agreement could be reached, but the findings helped inform the design of the INREMP project and the RUPES team was involved in drafting the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2008 and conducting a final review of the Sustainable Forest Management Act in 2008. The team also contributed to drafting the Executive Order on Rewards for Environmental Services (RES) with the National RES Technical Working Group, which solicited viable policy options for RES, such as a DENR's Administrative Order or Joint Orders of the different government offices. The full potential for linkage with INREMP was not realised owing to the delayed implementation of the project. A third phase of grant with a different name, "SmartTreeInvest" is currently under implementation and is still linked to INREMP. 44. The country-specific grants illustrate both positive outcomes with good linkage with the country programme, and little direct linkage with the country programme. The small grant to NEDA was directly linked to a capacity building objective of the MOU between IFAD and the Philippines when IFAD took on the role of direct supervision. Implementation was slow to start and better at targeting NEDA and regional and local implementation agencies than the intended government financial institutions.168 The capacity building did contribute to the emergence of a new national results-based M&E system developed between NEDA and the Department of Budget Management. 45. The small grant to Atikha to provide financial literacy training to migrants (originally in Italy, then extended to UAE, Qatar and Singapore) followed by support for investment in agriculture in the Philippines has no direct link to the loan portfolio, but targets a key financial resource for the country (estimated at 10 per cent of GDP in 2014). The difficulty in linking with the loan portfolio is perhaps not surprising and is understandable given that the starting points of the grant is migrants and where the remittances are generated, rather than who the recipients of remittances are and where they are located in the Philippines. 46. The country-specific grant modality was not efficient to provide short-term and emergency response. The HARP grant was intended to provide a jump start to revive small holder rice production through the distribution of seeds and fertilizer in the recovery phase after Typhoon Haiyan. The project worked through farmers’ organisations without any reference to their poverty or vulnerability.

168 Grant supervision mission report (July 2012). According to the design, by "government financial institutions" included SBC and the Land Bank of the Philippines.

77 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

47. Most of the seeds were not distributed until the third or fourth cropping after the typhoon and over 80 per cent of the fertiliser came even later, not simultaneously. Delays arose from a combination of slow procurement and disruption to government services following the typhoon, even though the project did eventually reach the full target of beneficiaries.169 One positive linkage is that initial seed supplies came from buffer stocks managed by DA that were developed following the experience of piloting in RaFPEP/IRPEP. 48. The grant was designed in response to a call for support following the typhoon and approved by the Board through correspondence. The CSPE team was not able to find the record of internal review of the proposal. Indeed, there is no evidence that the grant proposal was reviewed critically in terms of the fit with the IFAD policy framework, IFAD's comparative advantage or delivery capacity through proposed implementation arrangements. The document submitted to the Executive Board argued that this grant was in line with one of the key outputs of the IFAD policy on grant financing, since it would strengthen the capacity of the Government of the Philippines to deliver services to the rural poor: a debatable justification. 49. The PCR indicated that one of the main lessons is that IFAD’s grant instrument with current implementation modalities is inefficient to be used as a short-term and emergency response tool. The 2011 Guidelines for Disaster Early Recovery include the principal that synergies with other agencies and specialized (relief) organizations should be maximized and duplication of efforts avoided.170 In parallel with IFAD, FAO implemented multiple projects worth about $40 million mobilized from 14 donors, and the question must be asked whether IFAD’s funding would have been more effective routed through a partner, Rome-based agency? E. Overall assessment 50. Reflecting on the four areas of enquiry set out for the CSPE (paragraph 243), the assessment is that: (i) the loan programme has been effective in some cases in supporting dialogue and discussion on the policy issues that affect the IFAD target group; (ii) there are positive examples of complementary grants generating useful findings to help improve implementation; (iii) the flow of information through knowledge management has mainly been disseminated and taken up by close associates on IFAD projects but has had very little influence on a wider audience; and (iv) the experience gained in IFAD-financed projects has only influenced governments’ policies and programmes in relatively small-scale and isolated ways. A contributing factor on the last point has been the inability to develop a platform from which to engage with senior decision-makers in the same way as has been achieved at an operational level. The IFAD country office has enabled exchange at an operational level but lacks the human and financial resources to initiate influence at a higher level. On balance, the overall assessment of non-lending activities is rated as moderately satisfactory (4) Table 18 Assessment of non-lending activities Non-lending activities Rating

Knowledge management 5 Policy dialogue 4 Partnership building 4 Overall 4

169 HARP Project Completion Report 170 EB 2011/102/R.29 para 30.

78 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Key points  Knowledge management was well set out as an integrated part of the country programme, and platforms such as ACPoR, KLM-PE and the IFAD Philippines Gender Network have effectively contributed to experience sharing and cross fertilization. There have been cases of good linkages between the loan and grant financed projects, with the latter contributing to improving the effectiveness of the performance of the former.  The original objectives for policy dialogue were overambitious and relied too much on the expectation that issues emerging from the ACPoR and KLM would be channelled into a higher level dialogue.  Partnerships with government agencies and civil society organizations have been extensive and generally good, but collaboration and partnerships with other development partnerships or the private sector is less.

79 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

V. Performance of partners A. IFAD 51. One of the key features of the IFAD-Philippines partnerships has been attention and visible efforts on non-lending activities. The areas of strong performance include knowledge management, as well as the way the loan-financed projects and non-lending activities such as ACPoR and KLM, as well as some grant financed projects fostered communication and collaboration between various government agencies, LGUs, civil society organizations, international research institutions (CGIAR grant recipients) around key rural development issues and challenges. 52. Of course, non-lending activities are pursued by collaboration and partnerships between IFAD and the Government, but IFAD can be given credit for actively promoting communication and networking, facilitating the organization of fora and platforms where exchange can take place, and closely working with various partners. In particular, the role of the country office and particularly that of country programme officer has been instrumental in planning and implementing these activities. This is well recognized by the CSPE team, as well as by the Government and other partners. 53. IFAD effectively took up the responsibilities for direct supervision. With respect to the projects covered in this evaluation, except for the first period of NMCIREMP which had initially been supervised by a cooperating institution (UNOPS), and INREMP which is supervised by ADB, IFAD performed direct supervision, regularly fielded supervision missions, usually once a year and sometimes twice, with a number of specialists. In fact, this contrasts with the assessment by evaluations on IFAD performance in earlier projects (not covered in this evaluation), which were critical on lack of its presence and inputs after the project approval.171 In the case of NMCIREMP, the PPA assessed that IFAD’s direct supervision was more responsive to project needs, even though some delays in loan fund disbursements were experienced at the time of hand-over from UNOPS to IFAD. The review of the records of supervision missions shows that the country programme officer participated in almost all supervision missions and about half of them he led. The country programme officer also conducted follow-up visits between supervision missions as necessary. 54. IFAD has decisively enhanced in-country presence by establishing its country office and in particular, it has enhanced implementation support to the lending portfolio, as well as collaboration with various partners, although the partnership building with other development partners was somewhat limited compared to those with government agencies and other project (loans and grant) partners. In connection with INREMP, despite being a small co-financier of the project against ADB financing US$100 million, joint efforts and follow-up between ADB and IFAD to address implementation issues have been much appreciated by ADB. 55. On the other side, there are also a number of areas where IFAD could have performed better. First, the COSOP document was not a coherent and strategic document that served to guide the country programme (see the analysis provided in section VI.A.). The COSOP development process was also protracted over 4-5 years (see also paragraph 341). This did not hold up the processing of new

171 The completion evaluation for the Cordillera Highlands Agricultural Resource Management Project (IFAD 2007) rated IFAD performance as moderately unsatisfactory (3). The interim evaluation for the Rural Micro-enterprise Finance Project (IFAD 2003) commented as follows: "after project approval, the role of IFAD in the project weakened considerably. No IFAD officer or consultant participated in ADB reviews and wrap-up missions in 1998, 2000 and 2001".

80 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

projects, but it did mean there was a period when it was not clear what should serve as a strategic framework guiding the country programme.172 56. Second, in some cases, there were shortcomings in project designs, for example, not fully supported by good quality contextual and institutional analysis and/or under-designed (e.g. RuMEPP, CHARMP2 for rural/micro finance). Project designs are joint efforts between IFAD and the Government, but with global experience on issues related to rural development and poverty reduction, IFAD could have provided more inputs and advice in the process of project design (and subsequent process of supervision and implementation support). 57. Third, support for setting up and operationalizing M&E systems in projects from the beginning (design stage) and throughout the project implementation periods could have received more attention. The IFAD corporate framework, "Results and Impact Management System" (RIMS) for "measuring and reporting on the results and impact of IFAD-supported country programmes" introduced common indicators at different levels of results and a common methodology for assessing impact. According to the IFAD county team, these requirements associated with RIMS were not necessarily helpful and have complicated the M&E-related efforts by project teams. 58. It is recognized that M&E is an area of challenge in many country programmes and projects, not specific to the Philippines. In the Philippines, there may be even more opportunities to support the efforts in this area, given the increasing and strong interest of the national government in M&E173 and government staff with good capacity. In this regard, it is worthwhile noting that IFAD provided a small grant to NEDA for strengthening M&E capacity for selected government agencies (table 17, paragraph 287). Furthermore, it is also important to pay attention to supporting M&E capacity at field level, for example, by LGUs, people's organizations and local communities. 59. Lastly, the relevance and adequacy of IFAD's support to help the Government respond to emergency situations (RaFPEP at the time of the food crisis in 2008 and HARP following the typhoon Haiyan) is questionable (see also box 1, paragraphs 107-108, 129, 289-292). Both of them were simply about distributing agricultural inputs although with different implementation modalities: in RaFPEP-RaSSFiP, the National Food Authority was responsible, whereas for HARP it was the Department of Agriculture. These projects were both processed quickly for approval as "emergency responses", but faced procurement challenges and implementation delays necessitating extensions of the implementation periods. While speedy processing by IFAD (and the Government) can certainly be positive in terms of its responsiveness to emerging situation, it is not clear how challenges with public procurement process/system experienced in earlier RaFPEP-RaSSFiP were expected to be addressed in HARP which came later (in 2013). Largely short-term nature of these projects (also with minimal linkage between two sub-projects of RaFPEP) was not in line with the corporate guidelines and strategies. 60. Taking into consideration good progress and achievements in non-lending activities, in particular knowledge management and facilitating grants-loans linkage and direct supervision, but at the same time, some important shortcomings, IFAD's performance is rated as moderately satisfactory (4). B. Government 61. Performance of and collaboration by and among the Government agencies has been generally good. The number of government agencies that have been

172 In fact, three projects (RuMEPP, CHARMP2 and RaFPEP) were approved after the consultation began in 2004 and before it was eventually approved in 2009. Of these, RuMEPP and RaFPEP have no mention of linkage with the country strategy; CHARMP2 approved in 2008 has a nominal reference to "COSOP", presumably the one from 1999. 173 NEDA and the Department of Budget Management Joint Memorandum Circular 2015-01 (15 July 2015): National Evaluation Policy Framework of the Philippines.

81 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

involved in the country programme is very high (see also table 13), and in addition, there are LGUs. Furthermore, oversight agencies are also important partners in project processing, implementation and monitoring, and the collaboration with them has been reported as good.174 One may expect challenges and complexity in working with such high number of government agencies, but this does not seem to have presented a major problem in the Philippines, even if there were some instances where supervision missions pointed the need for better coordination by involved agencies (e.g. DTI and the Small Business Corporation in RuMEPP). The involved agencies are generally found to have been highly collaborative and amenable to recommendations. But there were also issues: the project records and the CSPE interviews indicated challenges in working with NCIP – not only in relation to IFAD-financed projects but in general. This has affected the implementation of activities related to ADSDPPs and CADTs. 62. NEDA's participation in practically all supervision missions is found to be a good practice and indicates strong ownership by the Government. In most, if not all, cases, NEDA staff (often two members, and mainly from its M&E section) take on specific responsibilities in the team, such as M&E, institutional issues and procurement. It is noteworthy that IFAD and NEDA signed a general memorandum of understanding on 12 March 2008 to promote collaboration in areas such as policy dialogue, knowledge sharing and learning events, supervision and implementation support and M&E. 63. The average PSR rating on project management has generally been comparable to the average APR regional scores (annex XI). The country average was brought down in 2012 and 2013 by the "unsatisfactory" rating for CHARMP2 – the only project that was rated as "unsatisfactory" for this indicator since 2011. However, this was followed by improvement with the rating "moderately satisfactory" in 2014 and "satisfactory" in 2015. The average score on the M&E performance has also been very close to the regional average, most projects in most years rated as "moderately satisfactory". This, however, may have been overrating, in light of the challenges by the CSPE in finding reliable set of data. 64. The availability of counterpart funding has also been generally good, including "highly satisfactory" ratings in some years for RuMEPP (due to high co- financing by DTI and the Small Business Corporation) and CHARMP2 after having received the rating of "highly unsatisfactory" in one year (2013). For CHARMP2, the challenge faced was mostly in relation to counterpart funding by LGUs for rural infrastructure sub-projects in early years (see also paragraphs 142 and 150), but there were also reports of delays in releasing the funds by the project to match the counterpart funding175 or underreporting of counterpart funding by LGUs and beneficiaries as these were not recorded properly. 65. The available data indicate moderate to reasonable performance of the fiduciary aspects overall. The PSR scores on the quality of financial management have been generally higher than the APR average score. Although no project had been rated lower than 3, the latest PSR for INREMP provided 3 for this criteria and brought down the average for the country portfolio. Quality and timeliness of audit, procurement and compliance with loan covenants are among the indicators where the performance has fluctuated. The average score on quality and timeliness of audit was the lowest at 3 in 2012 and significantly lower than the regional average, but this has improved. One project (RaFPEP) has been consistently rated at 3 for this indicator: delays in the submission of audit reports seem to be one of the

174 In the 2014-2015 portfolio review report of the IFAD Asia and the Pacifid Division, it was noted that the country programme strengthened partnership with oversight agencies (NEDA, Department of Finance, Department of Budget Management and the Office of the President) in the government review and approval process of CONVERGE and FishCORAL. 175 CHARMP2 supervision mission report, February 2014.

82 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

recurring issues. All audits for investment projects in the Philippines are conducted by the government/national audit institution (Commission on Audit), and their performance has been rated mostly 5 or 4 for three selected projects in the past 3- 4 years.176 The ratings on compliance with procurement guidelines and loan covenants have fluctuated, affected by a rating of 3 for one project in both cases, but overall close to the APR regional average and mostly rated at 4. Delays in procurement affecting the pace of implementation have been one of the issues. 66. The key challenge met in the country programme was lengthy review processes by the Investment Coordination Committee177 for new project proposals. Scrutiny and careful review process are in principle positive, but according to the testimonies obtained from interviews, these processes became lengthier in recent years and this has been a challenge most, if not all, development partners have experienced. For example, it has not been rare to see the lag of 3-5 years from the concept development to approval. In fact, with specific reference to the IFAD country programme, these delays are one of the principal factors for little implementation results and achievements under three pipeline projects proposed in the 2009 COSOP. 67. On balance, the performance of the Government is rated satisfactory (5). The significance of the issue of delays is well noted and so are some other issues, but all in all, support and the performance in other areas have been very good and the Government has proved to be a valuable partner.

Key points  IFAD has been particularly strong with regard to actively supporting non-lending activities, networking with government agencies and project partners and direct supervision and implementation support, and the IFAD country office and the role of country programme officer have been instrumental. However, there were a number of important shortcomings, including the failure to develop a coherent and useful strategic guidance for the country programme (COSOP), some design weaknesses, inadequate attention to supporting project M&E, and questions on its response to emergency situation.  A diverse range of government agencies and LGUs has been involved in the country programme and they have mostly proved to be valuable partners. NEDA's participation in all supervision missions is an exemplary practice indicating strong ownership by the Government. The key challenge in the country programme has been lengthy review process for new project proposals.

176 IFAD records. 177 The Investment Coordination Committee consists of the Secretary of Finance, as chair, the NEDA Director-General, as co-chairperson, secretaries of some government departments, and the Governor of the Central Bank.

83 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

VI. Synthesis of the country strategy and programme performance 68. This section will synthesizes the assessments on the lending portfolio, non-lending activities and performance of partners in the previous sections and provide consolidated overall assessment of the country strategy and programme. The assessment will be presented in relation to relevance and effectiveness. A. Relevance The strategy 69. There is no clear articulation of a strategy for the country programme in the 2009 COSOP. Following the 2006 RB-COSOP Guidelines, the programme puts forward strategic objectives framed around the lending portfolio and describes implementation modalities involving participation, targeting, partnerships, knowledge management, policy dialogue and cross-cutting issues; but does not explain how they fit together in a strategy. Such strategy as there was is implicit in the description of these elements. For the purposes of the CSPE a theory of change was developed and that creates the following retrofitted strategy. 70. The implicit theory of change in the COSOP is that ‘direct investment in loan- financed projects in partnership with the GOP, supported by some selected regional grants would deliver innovative programmes targeted at different target groups in poor rural communities. Structured annual programmes of knowledge management and joint programme reviews would provide substantive material for policy dialogue, with the aim of successful investments being scaled up by the government and/or development partners. It is a knowledge-driven partnership strategy with a discrete set of independent investments.’ Nowhere is this clearly stated in the document and as a result, neither the strategic objectives nor the performance indicators draw attention to the added value of the strategy over and above project objectives. Yet the implicit strategy was coherent and fits well with IFAD’s strategic frameworks. Policy and strategy alignment 71. The country programme strategy has operated under two sets of policy and strategic frameworks. Firstly, the Philippines Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2006-10 and Philippines Development Plan (PDP) 2011-16. Secondly, IFAD’s Strategic Frameworks 2007-10 and 2011-15. The programme was a good fit with both sets of national development plans. The loan projects and IFAD’s implementation modalities taken together provide support to all three goals of the 2011-16 PDP: Goal 1 Food Security Improved and Incomes Increased; Goal 2 Sector Resilience to Climate Change Risks Increased; Goal 3 Policy Environment and Governance Enhanced. 72. The intervention strategies under the PDP have a direct bearing on IFAD’s support to the rural sector, inter alia, by tackling productivity and incomes of households and enterprises in the rural sector; increasing investments and employment across the value chain; transforming agrarian reform beneficiaries into viable entrepreneurs; explicit attention to marginalized groups including "farmers and landless rural workers; artisanal fisher folk; urban poor; indigenous people; workers in the informal sector; migrant workers; women; children; youth; senior citizens; and persons with disabilities"; support to the issuance of certificate of ancestral domain titles for indigenous peoples; and increasing the resilience of agriculture communities through the development of climate change-sensitive technologies, and systems. The areas of support reflected in the COSOP have the potential to contribute to diversification of incomes and livelihoods for the rural poor engaged in agriculture and fisheries. Livelihoods diversification has also been pointed out as one of the strategies for rural poverty reduction in broader terms.

84 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

73. IFAD’s operational outcomes in the 2007-10 Strategic Framework mirror the three goals of PDP, pursuing increased incomes and enhanced food security for the immediate target group of IFAD-supported projects, providing a basis for evidence- based institutional and policy reform; and strengthened in-country capacities for rural poverty reduction. In fact, the Philippines programme included ways of working that pre-date the new thematic focus and principles of engagement that appear in IFAD’s 2011-15 framework, especially through integration of poor rural people within value chains and promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. So in some respects the programme was in advance of IFAD’s emerging policy environment. Strategic objectives 74. Given the good fit with both national and IFAD strategies it is interesting that the three strategic objectives of the COSOP are so limited in scope, for example, combining a thematic focus (e.g. value chains, agribusiness for SO2) and geographic focus (e.g. "particularly in the Visayas and Mindanao" for SO2). See table 5 for the full presentation of SOs. Indeed, these are closely matched to the then current and pipeline loan projects: SO1 to CHARMP2 and INREMP; SO2 to RuMEPP and CONVERGE; and SO3 to FishCORAL. 75. The structure of these objectives is unusual among IFAD programmes. Other contemporary COSOPs in the Asia and Pacific region178 have strategic objectives structured around principles or themes such as access to resources and services, or empowerment and capacity building. The SOs in the Philippines COSOP are narrowly aligned both to targeted geographical areas and to the specific sub- sector or intervention model of individual projects. As a result, judged from the perspective of the strategic objectives and their indicators, there is no added value over and above individual loans (in other words, no programme dimension) and where implementation has been severely delayed as in the case of project FishCORAL, which aligns uniquely with SO3, no progress has been made towards the strategic objective. Coherence 76. Two pipeline projects were designed out of direct experience in the portfolio: INREMP, building on watershed development experience from CHARM1 (and lessons from grants support to ICRAF); CONVERGE building on NMCIREMP with geographical emphasis in Mindanao and the Visayas. FishCORAL was acknowledged to be a sectoral departure for IFAD but would target very poor communities and was to be preceded by a pilot grant to be implemented between 2011 and 2013, before the main project was designed.179 77. Into this framework was introduced implementation of RaFPEP, approved in 2008 the year before the COSOP as a rapid response to the food price crisis of 2007 and 2008. The fit or linkage with the COSOP is not obvious. The RaFPEP appraisal document does not make references to the COSOP, presumably because the bulk of the planning for the COSOP had been done before RaFPEP emerged as a rapid response. The RaFPEP-IRPEP activities were taken into account after the MTR by a slight rewording of the second strategic objective in the COSOP.180 78. The most coherent elements of the strategy were the intended targeting of the rural poor in the 20 poorest provinces and the mainstreaming of value

178 The CSPE reviewed COSOPs in Pakistan 2009; India 2011; China 2011; Bangladesh 2012; Vietnam 2012; Nepal 2013; Myanmar 2014. 179 This pilot grant was never processed and did not materialize owing to lack of interest by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 180 Strategic objective (SO) 2 at MTR was "the entrepreneurial poor in selected rural areas, particularly in the Visayas, and northern and western, southern and eastern, and central Mindanao, have improved access to markets and rural financial and other services (seeds and irrigation) to improve the value chains of agribusiness systems benefiting poor farmers, fisher folk, marginalized groups, women and rural entrepreneurs. The wording "other services (seeds and irrigation)" was not in the COSOP but appears in the results framework presented in the COSOP MTR report, presumably to better retrofit RaFPEP in the COSOP

85 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

chain development as a modality. This fits with both IFAD and the Government policies. In other respects there is little to associate the projects. From a strategic point of view there was an interesting element in the association between a few regional grants and the loan projects, but the grants are not discussed in the COSOP. According to APR/IFAD,181 diversification of partnerships with multiple agencies and support in various sub-sectors was deliberate, in pursuit of rural development solutions to address the needs of different target groups and that therefore, "interlinkage of operations" would be contrary to the IFAD strategy in the Philippines. This argument may be inconsistent with the 2006 Results-Based COSOP guidelines which emphasized a shift to "coherent country programmes, comprised of mutually reinforcing instruments and activities that support a limited number of key strategic objectives" and the synergy between delivery instruments. In fact, relatively weak coherence and synergy among the projects as well as non- lending activities suggests that it would be harder to develop convincing evidence about lessons from implementation to contribute to policy dialogue. Targeting 79. Presentation of targeting in the 2009 COSOP is confused in the text and the intended approach was not followed in all projects. The programme was to focus on the 20 poorest provinces ‘as defined by the government in any given year’ (suggesting a broad and changeable geographic focus), with appropriate diagnostic tools and techniques (e.g. participatory wealth ranking) used to target those segments of poor and food insecure people in these areas that are also able to take advantage of the opportunities to be offered. 80. Inspection of the outturn of projects and province concentration reveals mixed findings on geographical poverty targeting. Taking the 20 provinces with highest poverty rates in 2009, 14 of the 20 provinces have received activities from projects under implementation (see annex IX), but a large proportion of these were through RuMEPP only, which mainly involved self-targeting of active and potential entrepreneurs. Taking NMCIREMP, CHARMP2 and RaFPEP/IRPEP, the coverage was 8 of the 20 provinces, much less than indicated in the COSOP. Part of the problem lies in the protracted delays to INREMP, CONVERGE and FishCORAL which themselves were to cover 14 of the 20. The intention in the COSOP pipeline description for INREMP to focus on the 20 poorest provinces never passed design stage, with only 9 provinces targeted and of these only 4 were in the poorest 20 in 2009. The oft-repeated claim that the programme would focus on the 20 poorest provinces is in fact misleading. 81. Setting aside the discussion on comparison between actual record and the geographical targeting indicated in the COSOP, a more fundamental issue is that the intention of "working in the poorest provinces" is in fact both impractical and problematical. Published data from the National Statistical Coordination Board182 show that measurement of poverty is subject to a high degree of statistical error; hence estimates of provincial poverty rates have wide confidence intervals. Over three years 2006, 2009 and 2012, only 7 provinces were consistently in the ‘bottom poorest cluster’ of 16 provinces. Thus the claim in the COSOP to work with the ‘20 poorest provinces in any given year’ is impractical as the ranking of provinces in the list changes so much. 82. Targeting projects towards poorer provinces could be one of the practical ways of directing the broad thrust of operations. But more attention would have been required to diagnostics of poverty situation when proposing strategic directions in the COSOP and designing activities and approaches to increase the likelihoods that they reach the intended beneficiaries, also in line with IFAD’s policy on targeting.183

181 APR comments on the draft CSPE approach paper and the draft CSPE report. 182 2012 Full Year Poverty Statistics, National Statistical Coordination Board. 183 2006 IFAD Policy on Targeting (EB 2006/88/R.2/Rev.1)

86 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

83. Both CHARMP2 and NMCIREMP approached diagnostic work by selecting poor municipalities within poor provinces, reviewing poverty level and municipality classification, working mainly with Classes 4, 5 and 6, meaning those with the lowest capacity. In both projects, some type of participatory planning was used to develop implementation plans for project activities. In neither project were tools such as wealth ranking used to identify the poorer households. Whilst this might not have had a bearing on project activities it is relevant for being able to assess impact on the target group of different poverty profiles, as well as income and food security, a point developed further below. It is also noted that the comparison of PSR scores across APR shows that the Philippines scored at or below average for food security in 3 of the past 5 years (annex XI). 84. Respondents interviewed for the CSPE have argued that IFAD’s focus on the poor and vulnerable is a distinctive feature and distinguishes IFAD from other development partners. Yet that targeting was relatively underdeveloped in the Philippines. The targeting also failed to bring continuity of support for communities in post-conflict fragile situations, especially in Northern Mindanao, where IFAD had been an influential presence in previous interventions. In fact, CONVERGE would have contributed to these vulnerable populations had it not been so delayed. 85. In fact, the COSOP does not really reflect on how IFAD may integrate or address the issues of conflict or post-conflict tensions, even in Mindanao, despite political instability and civil conflict being identified as reasons for slow and weak project performance later in the document. The 2009 COSOP claims (paragraph 35) its comparative advantage including “conflict prevention and peace-building through re-settlement of ex-combatants” but there is no examination of these issues anywhere in the document, except for references to work by other development partners.184 86. Assessment summary. The overall direction of the country programme responded well to both national plans and IFAD’s strategic frameworks. There is some clear continuity from previous loan projects. The intention was to work in poorer locations with targeted beneficiaries, but the emphasis on poorest provinces was misleading and more attention should have been given to targeting beneficiaries. The programme of lending and non-lending activities was not well articulated in the COSOP. The component parts in fact combine to make an effective country design, but the importance of learning and bringing lessons to help the Government programmes and initiatives to be more effective was not recognized and underlined sufficiently. The country strategy was relevant to the country’s needs but in view of the lack of clarity over IFAD's potential contribution, is assessed as moderately satisfactory (4). B. Effectiveness 87. Assessing results against the COSOP indicators. Original and post-MTR outcome indicators associated with the COSOP SOs are shown in table 19. Of the three SOs, most surveys have failed to provide reliable, convincing evidence. The most consistent findings are for SO2, from RuMEPP and RaFPEP/IRPEP.

184 IFAD. 2015. Corporate level evaluation: IFAD's engagement with fragile and conflict-affected states and situations.

87 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Table 19 Results against the COSOP results framework indicators Strategic Original outcome indicators Outcome indicators Result over COSOP Period objectives revised at MTR 2012

SO1 Upland About 20% of upland poor In CAR target areas The CHARMP2 RIMS Report at MTR (2012) and poor HHs possess appropriate and compared with the Outcome Survey conducted in 2015 for households land tenure instruments, of 2010: CHARMP2 do not provide any concrete evidence whom 50% have increased of impact. their income by 15%, and - Reduction in the 50% utilize one or more number of HHs with According to the field visits and interviews by the environmentally-sustainable annual average CSPE team with more than 130 women and men practice income (in real terms) from 9 LIGs of CHARMP2 there had been a of less than PHP modest increase in the income for about 20 per 20% of upland poor HHs 60,000 to 23% in line cent of those interviewed. These increases were report a secure source of with the PDP national reported to be in the range of between 5% and water for irrigation and target. 30% of their current income. household use

In INREMP targeted Delayed implementation, no results. upper river basins: - 25% of the land is under science based land use systems185.

SO2 20% of targeted In RuMEPP target The PCR reported that 74,683 jobs were Entrepreneurial entrepreneurial poor have areas: generated, but this is considered to be overstated. poor access to rural credit/micro- The PPE found inconsistencies in data in various finance facilities sustainable -50,000 new jobs sources and could not estimate it, but it would be practice generated. much less the figure reported in PCR and also 20% of upland poor HHs - 10,000 of the lower than the target of 50,000. report a secure source and assisted micro Despite the shortcomings in data, there is an markets enterprises (MEs) indication that increases in income and profitability 20% of entrepreneurial poor increase their of beneficiaries are likely to have occurred, and so have diversified/expanded profitability and are are increases in resulting job opportunities. The their economic undertakings operational after extent is not known, however. 20% of beneficiaries three years. engaged in agri-based and DTI reported a 74% achievement rate (7,379 MEs) environment-friendly against the target of "10,000 MEs still operational livelihood endeavors after three years" but the PPE pointed that this possess improved was not confined to start-ups and included those capacities who were already operating 3 years earlier. In the 11 areas Delayed implementation, no results. targeted by CONVERGE: - Average income of 32,000 participating smallholders increased by 10%.

In RaSSFiP and RaFPEP-IRPEP reached 14,189 farmer IRPEP target areas: beneficiaries. - Minimum of 10% The investments in the irrigation system led to an increase in overall improvement in the conveyance efficiency of the rice production system and also had an immediate impact of compared with the enhancing production as a result of the increased baselines on 803,750 availability of water. Under RaFPEP, significant ha for RaSSFIP yield increases were reported in the project areas and 11,150 ha reports. From a baseline of 3.06MT, the yield for IRPEP irrigation increased to 4.01MT. Due to increased availability schemes. of water, some areas had also grown a third or fourth or even a fifth crop.

SO3 Selected (See annex VIII) (See annex VIII) Delayed implementation, no results. marginalized and poor coastal communities

185 It is not clear what is meant by “science based land use systems”. No explanation is provided in the COSOP MTR and no such term appears in the INREMP design document either.

88 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

88. Like SOs themselves the outcome indicators have some limitations. They are simplistically structured around the outcomes of the loan projects rather than a country programme as a whole. 89. The COSOP MTR reviewed the results framework and concluded that the three COSOP SOs remain relevant and appropriate for the country programme and there was no need for any major changes, with only some modification to the wording to take account of work under RaFPEP. Some changes were proposed to the outcome and output indicators for both SO1 and SO2. Not least, the dominant objective of securing improved land tenure under SO1 was already being questioned owing to implementation difficulties. For SO3, which relates only to coastal communities and is not related to any of the ongoing or already designed projects, the existing outcome and output indicators were retained, with the intention of updating them when the project design was completed. 90. To a large extent, the performance judgment made at mid-term still applies today: ‘The achievement of SO1 would seem to be doubtful, because of the delays with the implementation of CHARMP2 and the delays in approving INREMP, which are the two projects that relate to SO1. The approaches used by RuMEPP and RaFPEP help the programme to achieve SO2, but CONVERGE will not contribute anything. Owing to delays in FishCORAL there will be no progress towards SO3.’ (COSOP MTR report 2012). 91. Apart from the ACPoR meetings, described alter in the report, only one ‘annual’ review of the COSOP was produced. The Post MTR Progress Review report for 2014, published in March 2015, does not present any new data or assessment of outcomes and impact, basing its findings on coverage of households, loan utilization rate and output delivery. In the Country Programme Review presented at the 8th ACPoR in January 2016, the authors concluded the COSOP had underperformed, based mainly on the extensive delays to INREMP, CONVERGE and FishCORAL.186 92. Such a narrow assessment fails to convey the real achievements made under the country programme and highlights the limitations in the COSOP results framework. Three key weaknesses are apparent. Firstly, the strong focus on production, profitability and income measures for SO1 and SO2 is one- dimensional. The indicators fail to reflect objectives linked to food security (which are present in both the PDP 2011-16 and IFAD’s 2011-15 strategic framework) and hence, overlook issues of targeting and equity. That is relevant for participation in LIG, irrigation and agroforestry investments under CHARMP2 and for beneficiaries of RaFPEP, especially investment in irrigation under IRPEP where farmers have a range of land tenure arrangements that affect their returns from farming. Moreover, usable indicators about food security are arguably less demanding statistically than household income. Food security does feature as an indicator in FishCORAL under SO3, which has not been implemented. 93. Secondly, the indicators ignore innovative elements in the strategy and fail to stimulate data collection that will generate lessons for other projects and to contribute to policy engagement. Examples are many and include: the sustainability of SHGs/LIGs under NMCIREMP and CHARMP2; community support for common property resources through environmental management of reforestation under CHARMP2; financial gains through value chain enterprise development; and access to credit. Some of these issues call for qualitative enquiry such as case studies to accompany household surveys. Implementation approaches such as participatory community planning or application for enterprise finance and training bring opportunities for low-cost record keeping that can provide baseline data for evaluation. The outcome survey approaches used in the Philippines neglect these valuable resources. In contrast, concerns to try and capture the

186 IFAD Philippines Country Programme review, Antonio Quizon and Peter Situ

89 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

multidimensional nature of change in CHARMP2 led to exploratory work with Outcome Web analysis that provides illustrative descriptive material of little analytical value. 94. Thirdly, the outcome surveys themselves have failed to deliver accurate, reliable results. A mixture of flawed sampling methods, ineffective statistical designs, a lack of focus on underlying change mechanisms and weak data collection have limited the utility of these surveys. Because they are commissioned and funded project by project there has been no coherence in designs and approaches and piecemeal contracting has resulted in one-off engagements without continuity of collection and analysis. 95. Influence on partners. Some examples of policy engagement have already been given earlier in the report. Direct interaction tends to happen mostly at a departmental level with IFAD’s implementing partners, who consistently say they welcome lessons from IFAD-supported projects. The most effective example is IFAD’s support to review the national government: LGU cost-sharing policy in 2011 which contributed to a ‘temporary’ suspension that is still in force and adoption of ad hoc arrangements such as LGU 20 per cent share for farm-to-market road. 96. In comparison, CHARMP2’s attempts to support the ADSDPP process and issuance of CADTs in collaboration with NCIP have been ineffective. This experience might have the benefit of challenging the efficacy of NCIP, questioning the certification modality and indeed rethinking assumptions about the need for ancestral domain titles to provide tenure security. 97. The logic of using lessons from implementation experience before scaling up is also evident. DAR reported to the CSPE that CONVERGE is regarded as scaling up lessons from NMCIREMP, directed towards agrarian reform community (ARC) clusters and with a new value chain approach. The processing of CONVERGE preceded another major project proposal, the Inclusive Partnerships for Agricultural Competitiveness project (IPAC), expected to be financed by the World Bank.187 IPAC also works with ARCs smallholder farmers and landless farmers in the targeted ARC clusters in 44 provinces. Whereas CONVERGE works with pre- identified commodities, IPAC will respond to proposals from cooperatives then give a matching grant. CONVERGE is more narrowly targeted than IPAC. While the two projects do not quite follow the same approaches, had CONVERGE been implemented to the original schedule, lessons from that experience might have informed DAR’s planning with IPAC. 98. Time delays. Figure 3 and 6 in earlier section illustrated the planned and actual timing of events under the COSOP. Delays have set back progress under the country programme and disrupted continuity of learning and implementation. The whole programme and pipeline projects were subject to long delays. Initially, when consultation for the new COSOP started in 2004 it was suspended for: (i) the country programme management team to deal with the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami in Sri Lanka and Maldives; and (ii) during a domestic political crisis in the Philippines related to attempts to impeach President Arroyo. Introduction of the RB-COSOP format in 2007 necessitated further consultations with the Government to align with the MTDP. Next, efforts were reprioritised to support a call by UN Secretary General to assist countries affected by the 2007-8 food price crisis (which led to RaFPEP).188 By this time the MTDP was in its last stages just as the new COSOP was being approved. As it happens, the preparation and processing of CHARMP2 went ahead on schedule in 2008. The approval of INREMP and processing of CONVERGE and FishCORAL were then held up by the newly instituted Investment Coordination Committee process. The

187 The proposal for IPAC was approved by NEDA Board in September 2016, at its first board meeting under the new administration. 188 COSOP Maturity Assessment Template June 2009,

90 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

COSOP finalization was delayed by about three years and the three projects by three to four years each. These delays are principal factors behind the underperformance of the programme. 99. Effectiveness assessment. The COSOP strategic objectives as set out in SO1, 2 and 3 have not been met. Consequently, from an objective-based assessment, this would lead to the rating of moderately unsatisfactory for effectiveness. However, as noted above, the CSPE considers that the way the strategic objectives and directions of the programme was described in the COSOP document was unsatisfactory, comprising of no more than a summary of results from the project portfolio. In particular, it takes no account of the programme dimension, which brings in non-lending services: grants, knowledge management and working with partners. The performance of the programme viewed from this wider perspective, as encapsulated in the theory of change developed by the CSPE is somewhat better. Much of this improvement arises from the committed support from the IFAD country office, specifically, the country programme officer and assistant, who have fostered a stimulating environment of learning and cross-project mutual support. The effectiveness of the country strategy (broader than the COSOP document) and programme is therefore assessed as moderately satisfactory (4). C. Overall assessment: country strategy and programme performance 100. The country programme was designed with an orientation to appropriate policy and strategy frameworks and built on previous experience to a fair degree. The approach to targeting was not well thought through, mainly driven by geographical targeting and with the stated intention of directing investment to the 20 poorest provinces being not practical. The interaction between lending and non-lending services was relatively good, but the opportunities and potential had not been well reflected, in the COSOP and this may have contributed to knowledge management and policy dialogue being focused on aspects of implementation process rather than development results. Ultimately, effectiveness is poorly reflected in survey results and was compromised by delays both to the COSOP and to project implementation. 101. If the country strategy and programme performance was to be assessed solely based on the COSOP document, it would not be rated better than moderately unsatisfactory. But the performance viewed from a wider perspective, taking into consideration the efforts and advances made, especially outside and between each individual project, overall, it is assessed as moderately satisfactory (4). Table 20 Country strategy and programme performance assessment

Relevance 4

Effectiveness 4

Overall 4

91 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

Key points  Presentation of the country strategy underplays the added value of the programme through not explaining the linkages between lending and non-lending services.  The programme was well aligned to Government and IFAD’s plans and strategies, but targeting was poorly designed and to some extent impractical.  The programme strategic objectives were narrowly focused on project outcomes, with indicators that overlook aspects of food security, and innovative features with potential for lesson-learning.  Some progress was made towards SO2, but results for SO1 have been delayed and there is no progress at all towards SO3.  Long delays in COSOP development and its pipeline project processing are principal factors behind the underperformance of the programme.

92 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

VII. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 102. Over the period of the evaluation, IFAD’s support to the Philippines changed mainly in two ways. Firstly, a shift in emphasis from predominantly area-based interventions with participatory planning, towards a more mixed portfolio with sectoral focus across a wide geographical area and with more prominence of value-chain and micro-entrepreneur interventions. This responded well to national development objectives that emphasised economic growth and employment. The coverage of rather wide geographical areas in some projects was also a response to the Government's priority on "the poorest provinces". 103. Secondly, adoption of a more knowledge-driven partnership strategy under which direct investment in loan-financed projects in partnership with the Government, supported by some selected regional grants, would deliver innovative programmes targeted at different groups in poor rural communities. Structured annual programmes of knowledge management and joint programme reviews were to provide substantive material for policy dialogue, with the aim of successful investments being scaled up by the government and/or development partners. 104. During the period covered by the evaluation, the Philippines has experienced steady economic growth. The IFAD lending term changed from highly concessional to intermediate terms in 2008, and then to ordinary terms for the most recent loans. The Philippines is now classified as a lower middle-income country. However, it is a shared view that poverty – in particular in rural areas – has persisted, and that further efforts are need for a broader-based and inclusive growth. 105. The country programme presents a contrasting tale of innovation and delay; process has prevailed over progress. The country presence with competent staff enabled close follow-up on the country programme and excellent networking with partners in certain sections, which brought success to knowledge management. The attention to the value added beyond financing investment projects has become even more relevant as IFAD seeks to find ways to engage with middle-income countries, given that the Philippines is not short of financial resources (domestic or external). But substantial delays in both implementation and the entry of new projects to the portfolio, combined with poor understanding about project results, diminished the learning to be fed into policy engagement processes and scaling-up from IFAD’s support. With the belated start-up of pipeline projects, the portfolio is only now settling into the new investments foreseen in the 2009 COSOP. 106. The country programme was a good fit with national plans and IFAD’s strategic frameworks, with a strong orientation towards alleviating rural poverty. But design details did not always match strategic intentions. Targeting relied heavily on the Government's list of "the poorest provinces", an aim that was in fact not practicable. Identification and/or monitoring of beneficiaries lacked clarity, whether of farmers on irrigation schemes (i.e. owner-cultivators, tenants or sharecroppers), the nature of micro-entrepreneurs to be supported, or quite how job creation would occur. NMCIREMP and CHARMP2 both relied on working through groups in a participatory manner, but their relative roles and potential, as an organising conduit or to sustain a viable enterprise, were not always clear. Irrigators' associations are a notable exception. In CHARMP2, the project interventions intended to improve access to finance had to be re-structured during implementation. Widely spread geographical coverage, multitude of activities and the low intensity of investment creates potential challenges to demonstrate how poverty can be alleviated and generate lessons for policy and scaling up.

93 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

107. There are a range of noteworthy and visible achievements, despite imperfect or poor evidence about the contribution to outcomes. Highlights are in support to irrigated agriculture (in particular, under RaFPEP-IRPEP), improved rural infrastructure (roads, footbridges, footpaths, water, community- purpose buildings), improved participation of communities in development planning and implementation and strengthening their organizations (though with varied performance for different types of organizations), and to a lesser extent, microenterprise development (RuMEPP). A significant achievement was the greater involvement of indigenous peoples in development processes and local governance. 108. The evidence is mixed for other areas such as natural resource management or improved linkages to markets. While RuMEPP was, from the viewpoint of outputs, successful in disbursing microcredits, there was little confirmation that the project induced improvement in financial services and products for them to be more responsive to the needs of the target group. The earlier success on supporting the development of ADSDPPs and the issuance of CADTs for indigenous peoples, hailed as a pioneer initiative in CHARM1 and NMCIREMP, has faced challenges in CHARMP2, holding back implementation of this specific activity. It should also be noted that the objectives and design of support in this area would warrant careful reflection in each different specific context. 109. A combination of a long gestation period, delayed implementation and weak generation of evidence means that the country programme has not moved forward from the pioneering work in Northern Mindanao and the Cordillera to develop effective policy lessons from participatory, community-based initiatives that recognise the importance of land tenure security as an important facet of development. There is little new evidence to update the rationale in the 2009 COSOP to tackle issues of indigenous people, control over land and water resources, and marginalised and poor communities in coastal locations. 110. Good performance and good practices have arisen across and between projects. Strengths are evident particularly in the performance of knowledge management, collaboration between the loans and the grants, the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment, the projects’ support to empowerment of beneficiaries and their organizations, support to “convergence” and collaboration of different initiatives and government partners. Knowledge management was an integrated part of the country programme. There were clear objectives, and structured mechanisms, which IFAD, with a critical role of the country programme officer, used to good effect. 111. Non-lending activities played to strengths in Philippines society. Close interaction and sharing of implementation experiences reflect a relatively strong civil society sector, good communications and well educated middle managers. The presence and role of the IFAD county office has been instrumental in facilitating these activities. 112. The original objectives for policy dialogue were overambitious and relied too much on the expectation that issues emerging from the ACPoR and KLM would be channelled into a higher level dialogue. In the absence of a regular national forum, IFAD needed to create opportunities but few examples have been found. Without a routine mechanism, the policy linkage objectives in the COSOP were unrealistic. Country programme management was rather inward-looking. Policy discussions were more about tools and techniques than higher-level strategic issues. There was little engagement with other multilateral agencies except for co- financing with the Asian Development Bank, or bilateral donors and little leverage over government systems. IFAD emerges as a small but trusted implementation partner for government but not an animated advocate to a middle income country. 113. Both monitoring and evaluation have under-performed. Monitoring has generated data about implementation, but in too many projects there are

94 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

inconsistences even over basic information such as numbers of beneficiaries. Evaluation studies have failed to deliver reliable findings about outcomes. Reports display a mixture of poor conceptualisation, weak or inappropriate survey designs and inattention by management to fundamental issues such as incomes, equity and food security. Countless opportunities have been missed to use participatory planning as baseline data and to develop case studies of complex issues such as livelihood group experience and natural resource management. More substantive findings could have changed the nature and scope of IFAD’s policy engagement with higher levels of government and other development partners. B. Recommendations 114. Provided below are key recommendations for consideration by IFAD and the Government of the Philippines. All these recommendations are to be considered in the following contextual issues: the new Government in place as of July 2016 and its emerging new policy direction; the country's status as a MIC; post-conflict situation in Mindanao; and the exposure to disaster risks. 115. Recommendation 1: Carefully reflect on IFAD's comparative advantage relative to the country's needs in the new country strategy. The process for strategy development should take into consideration the following: (i) given the size of IFAD, the country is not particularly in need of external financing, but rather looks for knowledge; and (ii) in presence of other partners with larger resource envelopes for the agriculture and rural sector, it is important to identify and agree on strategic issues and areas where IFAD's support and expertise could add value. The new country strategy should reflect IFAD's specificity and comparative advantage, in terms of the target group (e.g. indigenous peoples, fisher folks) and/or thematic areas with a clear pro-poor orientation, with a view to generating knowledge and lessons to inform investments by the Government and other partners for scaling-up. 116. Engagement with indigenous peoples in a proactive manner has been clearly one of the areas where IFAD has accumulated experience and comparative advantage, not only in the Philippines but at corporate level. Taking into consideration earlier achievements and with prevailing institutional challenges, there is an opportunity to revisit and strategically reflect on future support in this area. Land tenure remains a potential source of conflict and a key issue for the rural poor, and the new country strategy needs to consider ways to upgrade IFAD's support in this area - at ground level, as well as at policy level in collaboration with other partners. 117. The IFAD model of learning from project results and using information to support government policy should be an explicit element of the strategy. The strategy should discuss the opportunities for diverse types of support, apart from investment financing, for example, e.g. reimbursable technical assistance, facilitating knowledge-sharing with other countries. IFAD’s programme of regional grants can support this and should be included in the strategy. 118. Furthermore, given the exposure of the country and the rural poor to natural disasters, the country strategy should include a vulnerability and risk assessment and a disaster preparedness country brief, relative to its strategic objectives and foreseen support. 119. Recommendation 2: Enhance diagnostic analysis of the potential target group and targeting. The new COSOP will be partly defined by the delayed entries to the portfolio of CONVERGE and FishCORAL. Within their target locations there is scope to improve the identification of potential beneficiaries and how to reach them. First, there should be good quality diagnosis of different groups within the potential target population, a differentiated approach to reach them, and monitoring on the outreach, beneficiary profiles and the targeting performance. Issues of food security and inclusiveness should be more strongly built into targeting. Second, a more strategic approach to increase intensity of investment

95 Appendix II EB 2017/121/R.8

(either under a specific project or by creating synergies between projects) in targeted locations should be pursued where possible, to enhance the likelihoods of palpable impact. The latter might involve an agreement on some geographic focus in confined areas (building on experience in Mindanao, Visayas and CAR). 120. Recommendation 3: Strengthen leverage for policy engagement by improving the quality of knowledge and evidence. Building on generally good performance in knowledge management, an implementation strategy should be developed to improve the quality of evidence from monitoring and evaluation across the portfolio as a whole. This could include working more closely with NEDA and the Department of Budget Management in support of the national results- based M&E initiative, and supporting M&E by the implementing line departments as well as LGUs and other stakeholders at local level. Project designs should be accompanied by clear theories of change and should plan for analytical work and self-assessments. Consideration could be given to identifying and working with an organisation to manage monitoring, evaluation and learning across the portfolio and bring consistency and rigour to evaluation design. 121. The established ACPoR and KLM-PE processes should bring in other development partners and commission comparative analysis of implementation issues and performance beyond IFAD-supported projects. In addition, the IFAD country office should be resourced to increase support to national policy and strategy issues. 122. Recommendation 4. Strengthen partnerships with other development partners to support the new Government. Good performance to date in working with government agencies, research organizations and civil society should be consolidated and expanded to other development partners. Relationships with some of the grant recipients with clear potential for value addition and linkage should be brought into the mainstream of the country strategy and programme. 123. Closer links can be established with multilateral and bilateral agencies. This does not necessarily have to be in the form of cofinancing, also given the Government's recent policy on reviewing project proposals separately from possible financing sources (see paragraph 72). Working through the country office, IFAD should work with other development partners in the rural sector to strengthen the exchange of information with the Government with a focus on the areas of its comparative advantage and the Government's priorities. There are also opportunities for IFAD to work with other Rome-based agencies to provide advisory support on issues such as food production and food security, gender equality and women's empowerment in agriculture and rural development, and contingency planning for disaster risk reduction. The new COSOP provides an opportunity to initiate this process. 124. The close association with civil society should continue, maintaining their interaction through the ACPoR and KLM-PE. Opportunities should be sought to develop schemes with the private sector to help support value chain investments by farmers.

96 Appendix II – Annex I EB 2017/121/R.8

Definition of the evaluation criteria used by IOE

* Criteria Definition Mandatory To be rated

Rural poverty impact Impact is defined as the changes that have occurred or are expected to occur in the lives of the rural poor (whether positive or negative, direct or X Yes indirect, intended or unintended) as a result of development interventions. Four impact domains  Household income and net assets: Household income provides a means of assessing the flow of economic benefits accruing to an individual or group, whereas assets relate to a stock of accumulated items of No economic value. The analysis must include an assessment of trends in equality over time.  Human and social capital and empowerment: Human and social capital and empowerment include an assessment of the changes that have occurred in the empowerment of individuals, the quality of grass-roots organizations and institutions, the poor’s individual and collective No capacity, and in particular, the extent to which specific groups such as youth are included or excluded from the development process.  Food security and agricultural productivity: Changes in food security relate to availability, stability, affordability and access to food and stability of access, whereas changes in agricultural productivity are No measured in terms of yields; nutrition relates to the nutritional value of food and child malnutrition.  Institutions and policies: The criterion relating to institutions and policies is designed to assess changes in the quality and performance of institutions, policies and the regulatory framework that influence the lives No of the poor.

Project performance Project performance is an average of the ratings for relevance, X Yes effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of benefits. Relevance The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, institutional priorities and partner and donor policies. It also entails an assessment of project design and coherence in achieving its objectives. An assessment X Yes should also be made of whether objectives and design address inequality, for example, by assessing the relevance of targeting strategies adopted. Effectiveness The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were X achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative Yes importance. Efficiency A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, X Yes etc.) are converted into results.

Sustainability of benefits The likely continuation of net benefits from a development intervention beyond the phase of external funding support. It also includes an X Yes assessment of the likelihood that actual and anticipated results will be resilient to risks beyond the project’s life.

Other performance criteria Gender equality and The extent to which IFAD interventions have contributed to better gender women’s empowerment equality and women’s empowerment, for example, in terms of women’s access to and ownership of assets, resources and services; participation in X Yes decision making; work load balance and impact on women’s incomes, nutrition and livelihoods. Innovation and scaling up The extent to which IFAD development interventions: (i) have introduced innovative approaches to rural poverty reduction; and (ii) have been (or are likely to be) scaled up by government authorities, X Yes donor organizations, the private sector and others agencies. Environment and natural The extent to which IFAD development interventions contribute to resilient resources management livelihoods and ecosystems. The focus is on the use and management of the natural environment, including natural resources defined as raw X Yes materials used for socio-economic and cultural purposes, and ecosystems and biodiversity - with the goods and services they provide. Adaptation to climate The contribution of the project to reducing the negative impacts of climate change change through dedicated adaptation or risk reduction measures X Yes

97 Appendix II – Annex I EB 2017/121/R.8

* Criteria Definition Mandatory To be rated

Overall project This provides an overarching assessment of the intervention, drawing upon achievement the analysis and ratings for rural poverty impact, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of benefits, gender equality and women’s X Yes empowerment, innovation and scaling up, as well as environment and natural resources management, and adaptation to climate change.

Performance of partners

 IFAD This criterion assesses the contribution of partners to project design, X Yes execution, monitoring and reporting, supervision and implementation  Government support, and evaluation. The performance of each partner will be assessed X Yes on an individual basis with a view to the partner’s expected role and responsibility in the project life cycle. * These definitions build on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management; the Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation agreed with the Evaluation Committee in September 2003; the first edition of the Evaluation Manual discussed with the Evaluation Committee in December 2008; and further discussions with the Evaluation Committee in November 2010 on IOE’s evaluation criteria and key questions.

98 Appendix II – Annex II EB 2017/121/R.8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 Overall portfolio 4 n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. effectiveness, efficiency, effectiveness, FishCORAL 5 n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. relevance, one IFAD loan. IFAD one CONVERGE 4 a n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. inanced by inanced INREMP . rural poverty impact, poverty rural * 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 RaFPEP n the rating for n the rating 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory; n.p. = not provided; n.a. = not n.a. provided; not = n.p. satisfactory; = highly 6 satisfactory; 5 = ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) - * 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 4 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( IRPEP RaFPEP . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) - * ) 3 3 3 3 3 ( ( ( ( ( n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. ( ( ( ( ( RaFPEP RaSSFiP 4 = moderately satisfactory; moderately 4 = 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 the Republic of the Philippines the of Republic the CHARMP2 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 io in io n.p RuMEPP environment and natural resources management and adaption to climate change climate to adaption and management resources natural and environment , efficiency and sustainability of benefits. of sustainability and efficiency , 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 4 4 4 5 NMCIREMP c lending portfol lending innovation and scaling up, scaling and innovation for relevance, effectiveness relevance, for gender, , b highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; moderately 3 = = unsatisfactory; 2 unsatisfactory; highly = of benefits of projects under RaFPEP (RaSSFiP and IRPEP) were rated separately to provide combined ratings for RaFPEP, given that this was f was this that given for RaFPEP, combined ratings to provide separately rated were IRPEP) and (RaSSFiP RaFPEP under projects - l project portfolio achievement portfolio project l Arithmetic average of ratings of average Arithmetic Rating scale: 1 scale: Rating This is not an average of ratings of individual evaluation criteria but an overarching assessment of the project, drawing upo drawing project, the of assessment overarching an criteria but evaluation of individual of ratings average an not is This c sustainability Overal sub * Two a applicable. b Other performance criteria performance Other women's and equality Gender empowerment up scaling and Innovation resources natural and Environment management change climate to Adaptation Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency benefits of Sustainability performance Project Criteria impact Rural poverty performance Project Ratings of IFAD of Ratings

99 99 Appendix II – Annex III EB 2017/121/R.8

Ratings of the country strategy and programme: Republic of the Philippines

Rating

Overall project portfolio achievement 4

Non-lending activities

Policy dialogue 4

Knowledge management 5

Partnership-building 4

Overall non-lending activities 4

Performance of partners

IFAD 4

Government 5

Country strategy and programme performance

Relevance 4

Effectiveness 4

Overall – country strategy and programme perforamance 4

100 Appendix II – Annex IV EB 2017/121/R.8 31/12/2009 30/06/2014 30/06/2017 31/12/2020 30/06/2017 30/06/2023 30/06/2021 30/06/1985 30/09/1989 30/06/1991 31/12/1993 31/12/1999 30/06/2005 31/12/2002 31/12/2007 Closing Closing Date Date Current 30/06/2009 31/12/2013 31/12/2016 30/06/2020 31/12/2016 30/04/2023 31/12/2020 31/12/1984 31/03/1989 31/12/1990 30/06/1993 30/06/1999 31/12/2004 01/08/2002 30/06/2007 Completion Force Entry Entry into 01/04/2003 31/10/2006 14/11/2008 12/04/2013 09/11/2009 26/10/2015 26/10/2015 25/04/1979 01/10/1982 29/03/1983 21/08/1987 25/08/1992 04/12/1996 04/12/1996 25/03/1999 08/04/2002 11/11/2005 04/06/2008 12/04/2013 02/09/2009 26/10/2015 26/10/2015 26/01/1979 22/06/1982 16/11/1982 22/01/1987 18/05/1992 06/03/1996 08/05/1996 29/04/1998 Signing Date Signing Date Approval 06/12/2001 19/04/2005 24/04/2008 13/12/2012 17/12/2008 15/09/2015 15/09/2015 12/12/1978 17/12/1981 15/09/1982 03/12/1986 14/04/1992 06/12/1995 18/04/1996 23/04/1998 IFAD IFAD IFAD IFAD IFAD IFAD IBRD Coop IBRD AsDB AsDB AsDB AsDB AsDB - UNOPS UNOPS Institution 300 (US$) 654 672 654 9 590 000 9 590 3 500 000 3 500 400 4 466 11680000 2 306 000 3 007 2 046 000 2 046 13 620 000 620 13 000 761 11 38 700 000 700 38 000 000 25 935 286 14 554 282 18 31 000 000 000 31 Government - - - - - (not 25 mill 25 of ADB of financer - 2 640 000 2 640 EC 13 mill, EC 13 71 100 000 100 71 000 800 18 000 060 19 000 010 20 21 000 000 000 21 Co CCF OFID 10 mill OFID 10 DISOP 0.8m DISOP AsDB 10 mill AsDB 10 UNDP 0.62m UNDP FAO 500 000 FAO 500 materialized), AsDB 100 mill AsDB 100 Amount (US$) Amount 1.41 mill, mill, GEF 1.41 IFAD (US$) Financing 7 720 000 7 720 000 3 567 000 9 240 2 612 000 2 612 15 900 459 900 15 000 010 25 000 956 29 15 141 600 141 15 000 720 14 000 500 15 000 805 14 788 129 19 766 119 27 235 000 20 10 000 000 000 10 000 9 200 000 9 200 cost (US$) 42 200 000 200 42 000 530 52 000 000 43 26 900 000 900 26 000 700 21 000 800 64 000 200 18 000 600 21 000 500 27 000 400 66 62 000 000 000 62 000 700 12 Total project 121 800 121 000 600 148 FISH sector IRRIG LIVST IRRIG IRRIG CREDI CREDI Project AGRIC AGRIC AGRIC AGRIC RURAL RURAL RURAL RURAL Project Project Project Project (INREMP) (RaFPEP) Agricultural supported lending operations approved since 1978 since approved operations lending supported Project name Project - (CONVERGE) Resources and Resources Initiatives Project Initiatives Enterprise Finance Enterprise - Project (CHARMP2) Project Participatory Project Participatory Empowerment Project Empowerment Rapid Food Production Food Rapid Programme (RuMEPP) Programme Initiatives and Resource and Initiatives Enhancement Programme Enhancement Second Cordillera Highland Second Cordillera Convergence on Value on Chain Convergence Western Mindanao Community Western Mindanao Resource Management Project Management Resource Cordillera Highland Cordillera Rural Micro Rural Northern Mindanao Community Mindanao Northern Livelihood Project (FishCORAL) Project Livelihood Rural Microenterprise Promotion Microenterprise Rural Visayas Communal Irrigation and Irrigation Communal Visayas Fisheries, Coastal Fisheries, Integrated Natural Resources and Resources Natural Integrated Highland Agriculture Development Agriculture Highland Communal Irrigation Development Irrigation Communal Management Project (NMCIREMP) Project Management Magat River Multipurpose Project II Project Multipurpose River Magat Agricultural Resource Management Resource Agricultural Enhancement for Rural Growth and Growth for Rural Enhancement Environmental Management Project Management Environmental Smallholder Livestock Development Livestock Smallholder List of IFAD of List 1548 1547 1485 1475 1253 1395 1137 1066 486 505 302 196 084 108 008 Proj Proj ID

101 101 Appendix II – Annex V EB 2017/121/R.8

List of IFAD-supported grants in or covering the Philippines under implementation after 2010

A. Grants directly co-financing loans Grant Number Related loan-financed projects Signing date Completion date (loan- Financing amount financed projects)

1000002577 Rural Microenterprise Promotion 11/11/2005 31/12/2013 500 000 Programme

1000003084 Second Cordillera Highland 04/06/2008 31/12/2016 561 000 Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARMP2)

1000003084 Rapid Food Production 02/09/2009 31/12/2016 13 140 000 Enhancement Project (RaFPEP) (EC) – Rapid Seed Supply Financing (Euro 9 596 210) Project (RaSSFiP)

B. Country-specific grants Grant Number Grant title Grant recipient Signing date Completion date Financing amount (US$)

1000002848 AIMS: an area-based information Saturnino Urios 14/06/2007 31/03/2009 107 992 management system, Northern University Mindanao, Philippines

1000003277 Effects of biofuels on agricultural Southeast Asian 05/02/2009 31/03/2011 200 000 development, food security, poverty Regional Centre for and the environment: Philippines Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)

1000003851 Technical Assistance on Institutional National Economic and 19/11/2010 30/06/2013 200 000 Strengthening of Results-based Development Authority Monitoring and Evaluation for the (NEDA) National Economic and Development Authority and Implementing Agencies of the Philippines

2000000382 Rapid Response to Post Typhoon DOF - PHL 27/01/2014 30/06/2015 4 050 000 Haiyan Agriculture Rehabilitation Programme (HARP)

2000000854 Technical Support to the Ex-post De La Salle University 14/12/2014 31/12/2015 240 000 Impact evaluations using mixed methods approaches of the Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP)

2000000159 Scaling up initiatives in Mobilizing Atikha Overseas 04/12/2014 31/12/2016 500 000 Migrant Resources towards Workers and Agriculture Development In the Communities Initiative Philippines Inc.

102 Appendix II – Annex V EB 2017/121/R.8

C. Global/regional grants that cover the Philippines Grant Number Grant title Grant recipient Signing date Closing date IFAD Countries involved Financing (US$)

1000000099 Medium Term Cooperation Self 17/06/2009 31/12/2012 1 083 000 Cambodia, China, Programme with Farmers Employed India, Indonesia, Lao Organizations in the Asia and Women's PDR, Myanmar, the Pacific Region: Southeast Association Nepal, Philippines, Sri Asia sub-programme (MTC I) (SEWA) Lanka and Viet Nam

1000001711 Program for Accelerating the APRACA 11/01/2007 30/09/2012 1 200 000 Most countries in the Financial Empowerment of Poor Asia region Rural Communities in Asia and the Pacific through Rural Finance Innovations

1000002830 Programme for Knowledge IDRC 14/04/2007 31/03/2011 1 085 000 Most countries in the Networking for Rural Asia region Development Asia/Pacific (ENRAP II)

1000002907 Programme for linking the poor ICRISAT 03/12/2007 30/06/2011 1 500 000 China, Colombia, to Global Regional markets: India, Mali, the pro-poor development of biofuel Philippines and Viet supply chains Nam

1000003086 Programme on Rewards for Use ICRAF 15/10/2008 31/03/2013 1 500 000 Nepal, India, of and Shared Investment in Philippines, Pro-poor Environmental Indonesia, Viet Nam, Services (RUPES II) China, Cambodia, Mongolia, Thailand

1000003087 Regional capacity building and FAO 09/01/2009 31/12/2011 1 500 000 24 countries (divided knowledge management for into Year 1 and Year gender equality 2) in all regions (Asia, Africa, Latin America, Central Europe, etc.)

1000003253 Empowering smallholder IFAP 04/05/2009 31/12/2012 1 000 000 10 countries in Africa, farmers in the market (ESFIM) Latin America and Asia including Philippines

1000003375 Enabling Poor Rice Farmers to IRRI 28/07/2009 31/03/2014 1 500 000 Bangladesh, Nepal, Improve Livelihoods and India, Philippines, Overcome Poverty in South and Indonesia, Viet Nam, Southeast Asia through the Laos, Cambodia, Consortium for Unfavourable Myanmar and Rice Environments (CURE I) Thailand

1000003615 Advancing the international land ILC 26/02/2010 30/06/2011 1 070 000 Kenya, Malawi, coalition's strategic framework: Zimbabwe, India, putting a pro-poor land agenda Philippines, into practice at the national, Dominican Republic regional and global levels (then changed for Bolivia)

1000003832 Improving Livelihoods and IRRI 16/12/2010 31/12/2014 1 200 000 Cambodia, Indonesia, Overcoming Poverty in the Myanmar, Drought-Prone Lowlands of Philippines, Thailand South-East Asia

1000003895 Root and Tuber Crops International 22/03/2011 30/09/2015 1 450 000 Bangladesh, China, Research and Development Potato Center Philippines, Programme for Food Security in (CIP) Indonesia, India Asia and Pacific Region

1000004001 Indigenous Peoples Assistance TEBTEBBA 27/07/2011 31/12/2014 466 620 In Asia, Bangladesh, Facility (IPAF) – Asia and the India Laos, Nepal, Pacific PNG, Solomon Islands, Philippines. Also Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa

103 Appendix II – Annex V EB 2017/121/R.8

Grant Number Grant title Grant recipient Signing date Closing date IFAD Countries involved Financing (US$)

1000004046 Catalysing commitment to pro- ILC 07/09/2011 31/03/2013 1 000 000 Bangladesh, Bolivia, poor land governance Colombia and Philippines

1000004067 Disseminating CGIAR challenge International 07/05/2012 31/12/2014 1 000 000 Bangladesh, Bhutan, programme on water and food Water Bolivia, Brazil, innovations (CPWF) and Management Burkina Faso, adoption process for water and Institute- Cambodia, China, food, and piloting their Challenge Colombia, Ecuador, mainstreaming in the IFAD Programme Ethiopia, Ghana, portfolio on water and India, Iran, Kenya, food (IWMI- Laos, Nepal, CP) Nicaragua, Niger, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Vietnam and Zimbabwe

2000000074 Medium Term Cooperation Asian 04/09/2013 30/09/2018 2 000 000 Selected countries in Programme with farmers' Farmers' Asia and the Pacific organizations in Asia and the Association (Philippines in phase Pacific, phase II (MTCP 2) for 1 2009-2012 AFA Phil Sustainable as recipient) Rural Development (AFA)

2000000094 Enabling Poor Rice Farmers to IRRI 13/03/2014 31/03/2018 1 500 000 Nepal, India, Improve Livelihoods and Bangladesh, Overcome Poverty in South and Philippines, Southeast Asia through the Indonesia, Vietnam, Consortium for Unfavourable Laos, Cambodia, Rice Environments (CURE 2) Myanmar and Thailand

2000000099 Climate-smart, tree-based, co- ICRAF 13/03/2014 30/09/2017 1 500 000 Indonesia, investment in adaptation and Philippines, Vietnam mitigation in Asia

2000000493 Indigenous Peoples Assistance TEBTEBBA 14/10/2014 30/06/2018 525 600 Countries in Africa, Facility (IPAF) Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean

2000000511 Regional Programme on Planet 18/02/2015 31/03/2018 900 000 Pakistan, Philippines, Remittances and Diaspora Finance Nepal, Sri Lanka Investment for Rural Technical development Advisory Services (PFTAS)

104 Appendix II – Annex VI EB 2017/121/R.8 Annex

Key policy and legislative framework AFMA: Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act VI CARP: Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (CARP) HADP: Highland Agriculture Development Project IPRA: Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act Initiated in 1988 the CARP has been one of the most important elements in the KLM-PE: Knowledge and Learning Market, Policy Engagement Philippines agricultural policies. CARP aims to redistribute private and public agricultural SO: strategic objective lands to farmers and farmworkers who are landless for an equitable land ownership. The WMCIP: Western Mindanao Community Initiatives Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has been in charge of acquiring and redistributing Project an estimated 7.8 million hectares of land. CARPER, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms, is the 2009 amendatory law that extended the deadline of distributing agricultural lands to farmers for five years. As of December 31, 2013, the Government acquired and distributed 6.9 million hectares of land, equivalent to 88 per cent of the total land subject to CARP.189 Agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) have been among the main target group for IFAD support. One of the issues raised with the CARP implementation is that a majority of the certificate of land ownership award (CLOA) has been titles in a collective form (so-called "collective CLOA" versus individual CLOA), mostly CLOA in the name of all beneficiaries. Such form of collective titles was intended to be a transition mechanism to expedite the land acquisition process, to be followed by subdivision survey and generation of individual titles. The report by the World Bank (2009) indicated that about 71 per cent of all lands distributed under CLOA were collective. With slow progress in individualizing the titles, weak tenure security has been identified as one of the hindrances for farmers to access credit.

Revised Forestry Code (1975) This is the primary forest law in effect, presiding over the protection, development and rehabilitation of forestlands. It stipulates that all lands with 18% or higher gradient are considered inalienable and indispensable and shall be reserved as forests. Executive Order 263 (1995) defines community-based forestry management as the national strategy to achieve sustainable forestry and social justice. Agriculture and Fisheries Modernisation Act (Republic Act No.8435 of 1997) A comprehensive legislation that provides blueprint for the sector’s modernization and rural development. It focuses on food security, poverty alleviation, income enhancement, global competitiveness and sustainability. It was implemented through the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Programme (AFMP) (2001-2004). Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) IPRA is a landmark legislation, which entered into force in 1997 to recognize, protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples (IPs). The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) was created to establish implementing mechanisms and appropriate funds. With IPRA, the state shall recognize and promote all the rights of IPs within the framework of the 1987 Constitution, including: (a) right to ancestral domains/ancestral lands; (b) rights to self-governance and empowerment; (c) social justice and human rights; and (d) cultural integrity. Promotion and Development of Organic Agriculture in the Philippines The executive order no. 481 (2005) declared the policy of the state to promote agriculture development and organic agriculture nation wide. The Order aims to promote organic agriculture as a faming scheme especially in rural farming communities. Climate Change and Disaster Management The Philippines passed the Climate Change Act of 2009 (Republic Act (RA) 9729) to incorporate climate change in Government policy formulation and establish the

189 Department of Agrarian Reform website. Accessed February 2016.

105 Appendix II – Annex VI EB 2017/121/R.8 Annex framework strategy for climate change. The National Framework Strategy on Climate VI Change was formulated in 2010 to ensure and strengthen the adaptation of the country’s natural ecosystems and human communities to climate change, charting a cleaner development path for the country in the process. This is reinforced by the enactment of RA 10121, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010. The National Convergence Initiative (NCI) The NCI aims to rationalise and improve the provision of agricultural services to farmers and provide a more broad-based approach to reduce rural poverty. The Government is pursuing the NCI to maximize resources available and synchronize the initiatives of the three departments engaged in rural development: DAR, DA and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The objectives are to: (i) accelerate the completion of the CARPER; (ii) rationalize land use policies and strengthen the system of land property rights; (iii) promote sustainable agriculture and preserve the land resource base; (iv) enhance the investment climate for agribusiness; (v) promote sustainable upland development and forest management; and (vi) initiate adaptation and mitigation measures.

106 Appendix II – Annex VII EB 2017/121/R.8 men aremen security Goal and and incomes achieve higher achieve improved foodimproved empowered to empowered Poor women rural reas supported supported IFAD reas by relevant partners devt relevant remain priority in priority in remain GOP A development strategy and strategy development :Mindanao Western Community Initiatives :Highland Agriculture Development Project PE:Knowledge and Learning Market, Policy - agement AFMA:and Agriculture Fisheries Modernization Act CARP:Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme HADP IPRA:Peoples' Indigenous Rights Act KLM Eng SO:strategic objective WMCIP Project s policy key artner P by GOP by evt issues D progress Strategy effective at effective DS & CP & are DS Outcomes /or approaches are approaches to scale Implementation implementation targeted innovative targeted support tosupport GOP with investments lesson& investments maintaining project maintaining IFAD provides effective provides IFAD replicated and and taken replicated and learning about learning makers - activities Appropriate and partners and decision engage in learning in engage SO1 SO2 SO3 Policy Dialogue Outcomes Immediate Assumptions of external (CP) (DS) Negative impact Negative shocks managed shocks R o PE + - + ACP Project Outputs KLM Supervision Direct Country Presence Country during 2009 during COSOP period Pipeline projects Pipeline become effective become + Project CURE MTCP RaFPEP grants INREMP acity toacity RuMEPP CHARMP2 e.g. RUPESe.g. targeting 20 FishCORAL CONVERGE FoodSTART projects effectively cap implementation poorest provinces development implement its implement Complementary and associated and policy framework policy GOP adequate has 10 - Climate and other and CHARMP capacity in capacity – assets REFP various GOP 2010 - Policies , decline in farm , decline IPRA 1997 AFMA 1997 AFMA PDP 2004 Sector issues Sector IFAD policy IFAD framework IFAD project IFAD experience Context policies/strategies service limited productivelimited HADP Land access & title & access Land change, weak agric change, Indigenous peoples Indigenous CARPer 1998/2009 CARPer area & average average size, & area Strategic Framework Strategic Post conflict prices; low producer 2007 WMCIP NMCIREMP govt. 009 COSOP Theory of Change of Theory COSOP 009 2

107 Appendix II – Annex VIII EB 2017/121/R.8 - etc. objectives Institutional/policy Policies Policies affecting the Conditions under which under Conditions Climate change Climate issues policy Emerging NG: LGU cost sharing cost LGU NG: policy. implications for upland for implications practices. farming NCI. the to related policy. - e.g. operate MFIs capital minimum collateral, requirements, provision loss loan - establishment operation enterprises. of and micro sharing cost NG:LGU - - - by (2012) n project n - targeted upper targeted based activities based - EPP target areas: target EPP s and POs from POs sand disaggregated) 10% increase in revenue in increase 10% incomes increased 15% to lent have MFIs 75 micro of 80% businesses Participating 8 Ancestral Domain Titles Domain Ancestral 8 sustainably POs 170 produce in increase 20% the in increase 30% Revised at MTR at Revised Forest cover successfully cover Forest In INREMP In river basins: - of LGU watershed PES. through - livelihood from for investments beneficiaries RuM In - micro new 35,000 borrowers. enterprise - use trained entrepreneurs provided. training the targeted areas 11 the In CONVERGE: Project - Output indicators (gender indicators Output areas: target CAR In - IPs. for secured - subprojects. manage - ha. by 10,000 increased - in increase 10% and sales by reported prices unit real after beneficiaries project interventions. - o counts traffic roads. improved use disaggregated) with annual with R target areas and areas target R % of the land is under Outcome indicators Outcome HHs 10,000 10,000 of the assisted 25 Average income of income Average Reduction in the number the in Reduction (gender 50,000 new jobs new 50,000 In In CA years. by targeted areas 11 the In CONVERGE: Project - compared with 2010: with compared - of real (in income average PHP than of less terms) with line in 23% to 60,000 target. national PDP the In INREMP targeted upper river basins: - science based land systems. areas: target RuMEPP In - generated. - micro enterprises increase their profitability and operational are after three and Resolution of resource of Resolution change Climate not Policies/issues There is SMEs agenda SMEs There is Terms and conditions of conditions and Terms on Restrictions Policy dialogue agenda dialogue Policy provision)  microenterprise but no agenda use conflicts in existing in conflicts use laws upland of implications practices farming current in included of framework convergence development rural the sector  delivery credit  (e.g. microenterprises minimum prohibitive requirements capital loss loan collateral    - scale - harvest - ople trained in trained ople Original Outputs indicators Outputs No. of of pe No. tenure of land No. and Coverage small of No. Adaption rate of rate Adaption communal of ha & No. of post No. No. of of entrepreneurial No. viable of No. (gender disaggregated) (gender  technologies improved  systems irrigation constructed/rehabilitated  facilities & constructed/rehabilitated  environmentally gender and sustainable and farming sensitive impacts change climate  and facilitated instruments issued  of portable availability use home for water  km of e.g. infrastructure, market to farmer or access development roads  women and famrers poor microcredit with provided  microenterprises or established strengthened based and based - - friendly - finance - possess HHs report a secure a report report a secure a report 20% of targeted of 20% poor of upland 20% of entrepreneurial 20% of beneficiaries 20% 20% of upland poor of upland 20% About 20% of upland of 20% About Outcome indicators Outcome (gender disaggregated) (gender environment  have poor entrepreneurial rural to access credit/micro sustainable facilities practice  HHs markets and source  have poor their diversified/expanded undertakings economic  agri in engaged environmentally practice sustainable  HHs for of water source household and irrigation use  poor tenure land appropriate 50% whom of instruments, their increased have 50% and 15%, by income more or one utilize – in the in ve the ve have – (HHs) have improved have Strategic objectives Strategic agribusiness systems agribusiness farmers, poor benefiting marginalized folk, fisher rural and women groups, Visayas, and northern and northern and Visayas, and southern western, central and eastern, Mindanao, and markets to access other and financial rural and (seeds services impro to irrigation) of chains value SO2. The entrepreneurial The SO2. rural selected in poor the in particularly areas, particularly those with those particularly and peoples indigenous reform agrarian beneficiaries to land access improved and resources and water use gainfully and services sustainably. these SO1. Upland poor Upland SO1. households provinces 20 poorest 2009 COSOP Results Management Framework Management Results COSOP 2009

108 Appendix II – Annex VIII EB 2017/121/R.8 objectives Institutional/policy Climate change Climate rationalized CIS Emerging policy issues policy Emerging rice for stocks Buffer Availability and Availability seed. quality of accessibility farmers. paddy to seeds - irrigation for implications schemes. - scheme. amortization - NCI. the to related - - HHs r at r (2012) etc.) are etc.) . HHs disaggregated) 100% of rehabilitated and of rehabilitated 100% members’ of farmer 50% 10,000 target group target 10,000 of members the of 30% > certified of bags 803,000 irrigation 80% least At Women account fo Women account Revised at MTR at Revised service fee collection by collection fee service by 90% and CISs, IAs in NISs. IAs in - IA leaders. of 30% least - are areas restored water irrigation receiving cropped double are and annually - sold are production rice IAs. the through Output indicators (gender indicators Output for jobs new created have 1,000 - to access improved have and infrastructure rural processing production/ facilities. - management the (POs committees IPs. >15% and women areas: target RaSSFiP In - distributed. seed rice areas: target IRPEP In - areas and areas disaggregated) 2000 prices) by prices) 2000 Outcome indicators Outcome Minimum of 10% of Minimum (gender (constant 10%. IRPEP and RaSSFiP In areas: target - rice overall in increase with compared production 803,750 on baselines the RaSSFIP for ha IRPEP for ha 11,150 schemes. irrigation 32,000 participating 32,000 in increased smallholders Policy dialogue agenda dialogue Policy Original Outputs indicators Outputs No. of relevant national of relevant No. (gender disaggregated) (gender  and/or policies or local updated regulations no. of farmers benefiting farmers no. of Outcome indicators Outcome (gender disaggregated) (gender livelihood endeavors livelihood improved possess capacities - farm/non - . " in place of place in " "… pursue, "… ntain and enhance and ntain Strategic objectives Strategic mai off related, farm and/or farm microenterprise undertakings underlined parts the above.] entrepreneurs the in wording above [The was MTR report COSOP the from somewhat revised only which SO2, original indicated

109 Appendix II – Annex VIII EB 2017/121/R.8 and lization. objectives Institutional/policy Ensure budget allocation budget Ensure of implementation Full fishing on Encroachment to rights Access on of policy Review Ridge to reef natural reef to Ridge - resource coastal for activities. management - Code. Fishery the - grounds. - waters. municipal - and lease foreshore development - management resources framework operationa nt (2012) to SO3. to scale - disaggregated) No. of ha of degraded of ha of No. farms fish of No. Coastal approved of No. small of No. sustainable of No. Municipal waters Municipal Revised at MTR at Revised Output indicators (gender indicators Output - sanctuaries; as delineated - restored; areas - folk fisher and established fishing improved in trained techniques; - Manageme Resource implemented; plans - constructed infrastructure causeways); rock (e.g. - livelihoods and enterprises reduce to developed fishing. on reliance , feed , HHs disaggregated) Outcome indicators Outcome vironment friendly vironment Fish catch per unit of unit per catch Fish of target 50% in drop 50% targeted of project 25% 5% increase in local fish local in increase 5% (gender areas; - 25%; by increased effort - including beneficiaries, headed women a meals three families their day; - to due apprehensions with compliance increased resource on regulations management; - adopt fishermen and sustainable en techniques. fishing - coastal targeted in stock grounds Full implementation of Full implementation on Encroachment toinland rights Access on of policy Review Ensure budget Ensure Policy dialogue agenda dialogue Policy activities Code Fishery the fishing and bodies water waters municipal and lease foreshore development allocation for CRM for allocation      scale - mplemented Original Outputs indicators Outputs No. of ha of degraded of of ha No. farms fish of No. Coastal of approved No. small of No. sustainable of No. Municipal waters Municipal (gender disaggregated) (gender  restored areas  fishers & established fishing improved in trained techniques  Management Resource i plans (CRM)  constructed infrastructure  livelihoods and enterprise reduce to developed fishing on reliance  sanctuaries as delineated , feed , ll indicators for SO3 would be revised following the design of CoRFIP which is the only project that will contribute will that project the only is which CoRFIP of the design following revised be would SO3 for ll indicators HHs friendly - Outcome indicators Outcome 5% increase in local fish local in 5% increase of unit per catch Fish target of 20% (gender disaggregated) (gender 20% of fisherman sustainable adapt environment techniques fishing and stock in targeted coastal targeted in stock areas 20% by increased effort including beneficiaries, headed women a meals three families their day    Northern food. coastal The 2009 COSOP indicated that a that indicated COSOP The 2009 opportunities to opportunities management 190 resources in Bicol, in resources .Selected Sustainable access Sustainable 190 fisheries and other and fisheries Strategic objectives Strategic particularly, have to in resources productive utilize and areas, coastal sustainable resource diversify and practices livelihood needs, basic their meet SO3 poor and marginalized on dependent communities coastal Visayas, Eastern ARMM and Mindanao,

110 Appendix II – Annex IX EB 2017/121/R.8 X X X X X X X FishCORAL X X X X CONVERGE X X INREMP Bukidnon Inabanga; - Wahig iver basins: Chico; iver basins: Lake Lanao; Upper Lanao; Lake R X IRPEP RaFPEP VI, VIII & VI, VIII X X document not detailed) not document RaFPEP RaSSFiP VI, VIII, X VI, VIII, Regions V, Regions X CHARMP2 X X X X X X X X RuMEPP X X MP E NMCIR National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB, Board Coordination Statistical National – V X V IX IX XI XII XII VIII VIII CAR ARMM ARMM Region Caraga Caraga Caraga Appendix VII Appendix Apayao Masbate Province Saranggani Maguindanao Lanao del Sur Lanao Camarines sur Camarines Sultan Kudarai Sultan Eastern Samar Eastern Oriental Davao Agusan del Sur Agusan del Surigao del Sur del Surigao Northern Samar Northern Lanao del Norte Lanao Surigao del Norte Surigao Zamboanga Sibugay Zamboanga Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2009 Rank NSCB X X X X X X X X 192 2009 to 2009 Board provinces Executive Ranking not Ranking available. 20 available. COSOP Sep COSOP indicated "X") indicated COSOP full version, April 2009 draft (only draft available). draft draft (only 2009 April full version, COSOP 2009. September version, Board Executive COSOP 191 192 191 Analysis of IFAD investments in the 20 poorest provinces poorest 20 the in investments IFAD of Analysis 8 12 2 6 17 7 16 19 13 COSOP April COSOP draft 2009 (poverty ranking)

111 Appendix II – Annex IX EB 2017/121/R.8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B V V V B X VI VI VI IX - - XII VII VIII VIII VIII VIIII IV IV CAR CAR CAR CAR ARMM ARMM ARMM Caraga Sulu Tawi Abra Leyte - Aklan Albay Capiz Bohol Biliran Ifugao Basilan Kalinga Antique Romblon Bukidnon Sorsogon Tawi Marinduque Mt. Mt. Province Southern Leyte Southern South Cotabato Western Samar Western Misamis Oriental Misamis Camarines Norte Camarines Agusan del Norte Agusan del Misamis Occidental Misamis Zamboanga del Sur del Zamboanga 36 38 40 43 44 47 49 50 52 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 X X X X X X X X X X 4 11 20 3 5 10 18 1 15 14

112 Appendix II – Annex IX EB 2017/121/R.8 Caraga Soccsksargen Davao Region Davao Northern Mindanao Northern Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in Muslim Region Autonomous X X X X XI IX XII Island Group: Mindanao Island XIII ARMM X Region X Central Visayas Central Eastern Visayas Eastern Western Visayas Western Negros Island Negros V X VI VI VI VI VII VIII CAR Island Group: Visayas Group: Island NIR/XVIII Iloilo Benguet Camiguin Guimaras Catanduanes Negros occidental Negros 53 55 61 62 69 80 X Bicol Bicol Region National Capital Region Capital National Ilocos Region Region Administrative Cordillera Valley Cagayan Luzon Central Calabarzon Mimaropa Island Group: Luzon Island A B - - IV IV V NCR I CAR II III Region numbers/acronyms and names by island groupandbyRegion islandnames numbers/acronyms 9

113 Appendix II – Annex X EB 2017/121/R.8 in in Regions n a wider n a The EB The of the of Mindanao) barangays Project areas Project 270 X (Caraga) (Northern and XIII " and LF (EB document) also document) (EB " LF and economic - ve ve fund for security security in the mponents normally in both the EB document and AR/DD and the document EB both in normally co - – term, and institutional finance operations) finance - - micro NRM Support services (provision and services, marketing and of enterprise studies development, focused studies that sociowill contribute incidence of poverty and increasing to HH reducing food and income the longer support area) in the project working to national Support for indigenous people agencies (IPs representation, ADSPPs CADTs/CALTs, management Project Community Community development participatory institutions Community investments (small rural infrastructure and and a reser 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. Components and sub and Components components Six LF: logical framework LF: logical : target group, objectives and objectives group, : target reference to "providing models of replication" in one of the objectives. the of one in replication" models of "providing to reference Executive Board Executive processes processes are conducted e e to sustain increased food ways that are sustainable and sustainable that are ways interesting to see the see to interesting ecute and monitor diverse activities for report submitted to the to submitted report reliant reliant and capable of undertaking their own - oples oples in local councils and the issuance of FA: financing agreement FA: financing EB: "increased incomes". It is It incomes". "increased plication indicator", i.e. "Government and NGOs adopt at least two successful models piloted by the project for replication o for replication the project by piloted models successful two least at adopt NGOs and "Government i.e. indicator", plication ing ing them self "the "the vulnerability of the targeted households (IPs, coastal and : The goal statement focuses on reducing the vulnerability and food security, but not increased incomes as such, although one although such, as incomes increased not but security, food and the vulnerability reducing on focuses statement The goal : income households (310 000 people) living in the project area. This will - of the 270 priority barangays, including those in 21 CADC areas, are able sitios financed projects basic information basic projects financed certificates certificates of ancestral land titles/domain responsiveness of LGUs titles and other service providers to to the diversified them; needs of the and institutions." community (v) enhancing the (AR) Strategic goal: lake fishermen, agrarian reform beneficiaries and upland farmers) in the project area enhanced." security their food and is reduced Objectives: (i) poor in households the project area are abl production and household incomes from all sources; (ii) community institutions in all the in resources natural their of the toproductivity improve expand their livelihood opportunities incomes and so provide models for replication; and as (iii) security of tenure by to legitimate achieve IPs over their ancestral domains food is obtained and requisite security, increased to mainstream IP communities in the IPRA. with consistent the local and national economy in a manner had what was called "re was what had 2007." by scale FA: Goal: "reduction of vulnerability and the enhancement of the Target food Group." Purposes: security "enabling the Community among Institutions in approximately 270 barangays in the Project Area to plan, ex sustainable productivity enhancement of their natural resource endowment and for opportunities" livelihoods expanding EB: Overall goal: "to reduce the vulnerability and enhance the food security of about 58 500 low be achieved by: (i) promoting/strengthening people, community poor upland farmers, institutions agrarian reform beneficiaries, of poor fisher families indigenous and women’s SHGs, mak development activities; (ii) promoting the natural conservation and resource improvement base; of representation their (iii) of improving village indigenous infrastructure; pe (iv) facilitating the - and outcomes Objectives comment CSPE mentions AR in objectives management resource natural and agriculture improved of systems to replicable given be will emphasis "special stated document ot sed to be called appraisal report) appraisal called be to sed u loan landless oor and oor isher families, agrarian families, isher upland dwellers and dwellers upland beneficiaries, disenfranchised communities disenfranchised peoples, including indigenous f marginal reform workers, women" disenfranchised segments of segments disenfranchised the in resident communities n (but including Area Project peoples, indigenous to) limited ARB families, fishing marginal dwellers upland communities, workers." landless and p EB: "The beneficiaries NMCIREMP and poor FA: "The Target group, expected group, Target components report AR: appraisal (what document DD: design Overview of Overview

114 Appendix II – Annex X EB 2017/121/R.8 – on phase. It It is phase. on - efers to "poor to efers iciaries. While iciaries. Approximately 37 Approximately municipalities participating of the provinces within Benguet, Apayao, Abra, and Kalinga Ifugao, in Province Mountain barangays) CAR. (170 6 5 (Bicol), RaSSFiP: 8 Visayas), (Western 10 and Visayas) (Eastern Project areas Project (FA) Primarily in 19 target provinces in regions, five CAR, Regions target 5 (Bicol), Visayas), 8 (SOCSKSARGEN), (CARAGA) 13 and (Eastern 12 for the follow the for ted the RaSSFiP objective as "increased as objective RaSSFiP ted the mponents business - co of SBGFC's MF - fied inbred seeds inbred fied nt and IGAs and nt forestry - measure "quality of life" is not well reflected upon. It is upon. reflected well not is life" of "quality measure . AR discusses that rural poverty may not be captured by farm by captured be not may poverty rural that AR .discusses Social mobilization, participatory mobilization, Social titling land and planning investment watershed Community management forest conservation, agro and agri and Agriculture developme infrastructure Rural and management Project coordination Microfinance Credit and Support: (a) Support: and Credit Microfinance Microenterprises Credit Facility; (b) Institutional strengthening of MFIs; (c) Strengthening capacity Microenterprise Development Promotion Coordination Policy and Programme and number 150,000 (although not very clearly). very not (although 150,000 number 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. Five Components Five RaSSFiP certi of 1. Acquisition 2. Coordination and management of Components and sub and Components components Three " - - . farm - But the issue of how to how of the issue But communities and communities in some project documents project some in ed irrigation rice irrigation ed to improve their socio their improve to " promote rehabilitation of rehabilitation promote support . ; (b) ; (d) CAR business business development services; and (iii) conservation of watershed cradles of the of cradles watershed of conservation prises through the mobilisation of mobilisation the through prises hains, and to introduce or improve non improve or introduce to and hains, enter of target group in FA (with reference to indigenous farming systems and conversion into vegetable farming systems) farming vegetable into conversion and systems farming indigenous to reference (with FA in target group of promoted improved policy environment policy improved promoted - IP” communities and stakeholders including LGU including stakeholders and communities IP” power communities through strengthening through communities power as to enhance to as improve sustainable agricultural production, promote agri promote production, agricultural sustainable improve (i) increase farm family income of the rural poor through poor the rural of income family farm increase (i) and income generating activities generating income and " based livelihood based reduce poverty and improve livelihoods of poor rural women and women rural poor of livelihoods improve and poverty reduce numbers numbers of new and existing MEs expanding and operating ; (c) - " : Somewhat different descriptions across the documents. For the target group, FA specifies only "farm families", whereas EB r EB whereas families", "farm only specifies FA target group, the For the documents. across descriptions different Somewhat : : It is interesting to note the wording "quality of life" of "quality the wording note to It interesting is : : The descriptions of goal and objectives are fairly consistent across the documents, apart from the number of expected benef expected of number the from apart documents, the across consistent fairly are objectives and of goal The descriptions : being - Goal: t objectives: (a) em (a) objectives: t through improvement of value c value of improvement through traditional organisations and traditional leaders traditional and organisations traditional ject ject purposes: comment eneficiary communities eneficiary officers, are the target in watersheds opportunities members with community provide to and CAR well economic business small enterprises rural agricultural of the promotion for essential infrastructure rural improving LGUs in rural and production b comment CSPE indica EB that to note Interesting CIS. size of the to reference about only IRPEP for and for RaSSFiP farmers" paddy for CISs". seeds of paddy supply the "secure indicated FA whereas seasons", cropping 2009/2010 the production…during paddy cluster on farmers by production food to increase goal: (FA) Overall poverty to rural contributing thus basis, sustainable a on systems production production. CSPE of life’. ‘quality enhance to aims the project that notes and only income family of poverty" the definition "broaden to recommended which evaluation, the CHARMP1 used based on was the wording that possible the definition to note also interesting subsequently. mentioned really been has not which AR) EB, (FA, of areas the upland in communities indigenous men in The pro poor rural of the life of quality enhance (ii) and development, agricultural sustainable conservation watershed and security food security, tenure land improving through Componen target of capacity management Objectives and outcomes Objectives comment CSPE the AR had statement, the goal of part as households poor 200,000 indicates EB FA and job development, (FA, reduction poverty Goal: increased "rural economic EB) though creation and rural incomes for approximately 200,000 through poor increasing households, achieved AR). in "objective" called as latter (the sustainably" and profitably services toMFIs better able financial and are provide to SBGFC (i) MEs; "Outcomes: (ii) MEs receive effective and responsive the programme from MEs benefit , activity is activity " (para 000 nine employees nine - to including both including indigenous peoples indigenous - " Province, in particular: (i) in particular: Province, total number of number total The target group is made is target group The " (FA) "Primarily farm families in families farm (FA) "Primarily area" the programme target the of description No (DD) consisting of many tribes, who tribes, many of consisting and areas mountainous in live main economic whose agriculture. RaFPEP households applying indigenous applying households (ii) and systems; farming farming rice whose households converted been have systems farming vegetable into intensive systems" (EB) " mostly of up (FA) "Primarily poor indigenous poor (FA) "Primarily the upland in peoples each of area mountainous Target Borrower and the and Fund" Borrower (AR) beneficiaries workers and entrepreneurs 150 over be would 145) CHARMP2 RuMEPP expanding and "New EB) (FA, assets with microenterprise million PHP 3 lessthan worth one with and the between asor agreed Target group, expected group, Target beneficiaries

115 Appendix II – Annex X EB 2017/121/R.8 in – 13 - bugay), Inabanga River Inabanga - ig socioeconomic and socioeconomic and values, conservation (i) degradation: state of in CAR; Basin Chiko River Wah (ii) (iii) Bohol Island; on Basin in Basin River Lake Lanao Upper (iv) and ARMM; in Basin Bukidnon River Bukindnon. IX in Region provinces 10 Norte, del (Zamboanga Sur and del Zamboanga Si Zamboanga (Misamis X Region and Camiguin Oriental, CARAGA and Bukidnon) Norte, (Agusan del Surigao Sur, Agusan del Project areas Project ( Mindanao) (Northern to seems reality, RaSSFiP covered 12 have regions?); not but "Including IRPEP: 8 and Regions to limited report) 10" (design they but there criteria were in firmed up to be were PIM. basins, river 4 priority of the basis on selected condition, their biophysical and mponents co - s mainstreaming s investments in conservation in investments enhancement productivity economic rural and agriculture forestry, in the sectors development and basin river of Strengthening capacity management watershed governance related and mechanisms support and management Project services Participatory value chain planning and analysis Integrated smallholder agricultural development enterprise rural and Subdivision of collective certificates of facilitation landownership programme award of and land transfer River basin/watershed management basin/watershed River plans investment and institutional and Smallholder 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. In addition, activitie In addition, financed to be mitigation change climate GEF. and CCF by components Four Components and sub and Components RaFPEP IRPEP 1. Strengthening irrigators' associations (IAs) 2. Provision of services production related inputs and improvement infrastructure 3. Rural marketing processing4. and ofProvision facilities management 5. Programme Bs " were set 2013 2013 Rice - objective: objective: to increased rural increased : in the four targeted UR targeted four in the outcome Separate Separate "key objectives ( expected Sufficiency Plan. Sufficiency - The benefits. improved condition of watersheds of condition improved , the rehabilitation of CISs, the provision of farm inputs, and LGU revenues in selected watersheds. selected in revenues LGU and to increase production of paddy farmers in CISs and surrounding er the Rice Self the Rice er project) - generating livelihood generating Sufficiency Sufficiency Plan, during the 2009/2010 cropping seasons. IRPEP ons IX, X and CARAGA through the promotion of sustainable livelihoods - vinces of regions 5, 6. 8 and 10, and other provinces under the 2009 (EB) Overall goal: contribute to the reduction of poverty Caraga. and X IX, Regions incidence of provinces in the 10 target (FA) Overall goal: contribute to the reduction of poverty incidence in 10 provinces of Regi activities based on key commodities, e.g. rice, Area. Project in the competitive deemed that are sugar, rubber, coffee, cassava and coco, (LF/EB) (LF/EB) Purpose: rain fed areas in targeted provinces" (logframe). sub for each (EB): objective Project thereby incomes household Objectives and outcomes Objectives RaSSFiP objective: to secure the supply of paddy seeds for Area CISs in the for RaSSFiP the productivity year and production of irrigated paddy 2009/2010 on selected CISs in cropping the IRPEP Area, by seasons. strengthening IRPEP IAs objective: facilities. processing and marketing to improve (EB) Overall goal: targeted sustainable provinces. food RaSSFiP security objective: for pro increased paddy paddy production farming in households Self targeted in improve irrigated paddy productivity and production on selected CISs und provinces in the focus " eds requested selected Sufficiency - poor paddy poor " CISs of poor communities" poor otherwise have a have otherwise - a Rice Self RaSSFiP target target irrigators’ " or unemployed rural unemployed or - 2013 - p resource eligible peoples' organizations" peoples' eligible 300,512 benefit directly (FA) "will composed beneficiaries farmer 261,788 ARBs and of 38,724 CONVERGE smallholders, other (EB) "ARBs, under peoples, indigenous youth, business and women, including partners, development (FA) referring to the ADB to the (FA) referring neither agreement, financing with FA ADB nor IFAD group target of description approximately "Will benefit people" 220,000 INREMP approximately benefit (EB) "will majority the people, 220,000 and from vulnerable The sectors. marginalized particular a have also project will peoples indigenous focus on and than 5,000 h than 5,000 the of provinces the focus from 2009 to limited not but including Plan, that 10, 8 and regions and system rehabilitation funds. counterpart mobilized grou " (EB) (a) 8 and 6, 5, in regions farmers will 10, which se inbred certified deficit in (b) 2009"; of season for the dry IRPEP: less not on working associations Target group, expected group, Target beneficiaries

116 Appendix II – Annex X EB 2017/121/R.8 he he potential to g g that an IFAD project villages/barangays. Project areas Project del Surigao del Sur and Norte) target ProjectARCs 91 will and 50 municipalities in 10 provinces from bays/gulfs 11 in 13 8 and 5, Regions and Visayas, and Luzon The targetged ARMM. 14 in located are bays 103 with proivinces cities or municipalities the bays/gulfs bodering coastal 1,098 and aring aring practices have t (which have been recognized by have (which been 189 recognized mponents co - on: on: FA and EB They are the mandatory anchor indicators that should should be that the indicators mandatory anchor are They . Project management M&E and KM and M&E management Project management Coastal resource development Livelihood and management Project coordination there there are discrepancies in the 4. 1. 2. 3. Components and sub and Components [ component descripti include component 3., but design document nor LF attached not to EB in the document. It is possible that the design document dated March 2015 updated] was not components: Three icronutrient icronutrient deficiencies) to influence nutrition status. The factors determining based based rural - pact assessment. pact 10 10 provinces of Regions IX, other smallholder farmers in the 10 farmers smallholder other lholders lholders in based rural economic growth. economic based rural - enable ARBs and enable cent. r cent. (FA in in line) cent. (FA r indicator indicator of relative poverty (or wealth) in the project area. Malnutrition is an indicator of hunger. It is worth emphasizin communities of the targeted bays/ecosystems by 5 per cent from the mean poverty the from cent 5 per by bays/ecosystems the targeted of communities per 42 of incidence of income annual (a) realize to are objectives Development DD) (EB, FA, baseline; from cent per 10 by increase households community fishing participating the from cent per to 40 increased in IGAs engaged of women employment (b) and pe 20 of baseline Objectives and outcomes Objectives to objective: (EB) Development target provinces of Regions IX, X competitive entrepreneurs and and Caraga contribute to to the become achievement of highly growth. economic broad productive and (FA) Objectives: enable ARBs and other smal X and CARAGA to become highly broad of the achievement to contribute productive and competitive entrepreneurs and coastal target in the of poverty reduction to contribute to Goal: DD) (EB, FA, sectoral. sectoral. Any project activities that increase household income or improve household conditions related to food, health, or c ted type. of regardless projects project The RIMS of indicators impact anchor are linked to the Goals Development Millennium - ; (b) and " contribute . 193 194 Increased 00 households and households 00 (a) The The household asset index is used as an Reduction of incidence of child malnutrition and poverty are Results and Impact Management System (RIMS) indicatorsIFAD. of (RIMS) System Impact Results and are Management poverty malnutrition and child of ofReduction incidence 60% of the the targeted of 60% 5 years) by 4% from 4% by 5 years) - nutrition nutrition status are multi malnutrition. chronic decrease 194 included in all IFAD assis im on harmonization donor for a basis form and agencies) Nations United the of all and countries 193 does not need to have explicit “nutrition interventions” (such as nutrition education or the prevention of m ecreased child malnutrition child ecreased (LF/EB) " (LF/EB) the in households poor 90,596 area: Project assets of household ownership baseline 20% by of d 0 (ages 24.4% of baseline FishCORAL to "The project (FA): of incidence the to reducing of approximately poverty 188,000 or people 724,000 households" other rural wokers in 11 ARC in 11 wokers rural other in provinces in 10 clusters CARAGA." and X IX, Regions "35,0 (LF/EB) ARCs" 112 POs in 100 Target group, expected group, Target beneficiaries

117 Appendix II – Annex XI EB 2017/121/R.8

Project status report ratings for selected projects 2011-2015195

1) Quality of project management 1253 = NMCIREMP; 1395 = CHARMP2; 1475 = INREMP; 1485 = RaFPEP

195 Prepared by APR in October 2015 for the report on the Philippines Portfolio Review 2010-2014.

118 Appendix II – Annex XI EB 2017/121/R.8

2) Quality of financial management

119 Appendix II – Annex XI EB 2017/121/R.8

120 Appendix II – Annex XI EB 2017/121/R.8

3) Targeting

121 Appendix II – Annex XI EB 2017/121/R.8

4) Quality of results

122 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 related - nitation, literacy) following: questions); Malnutrition; Areas/themes Anthropometry. following items: following used for cooking); used for Child III. Economic indicators Economic Asset index (Relative index Asset Asset index (Relative index Asset economic information; economic - – of sleeping rooms; fuel rooms; sleeping of  type of animals owned); of type animals   Poverty/Wealth) (HH wealth (HH Poverty/Wealth) in involved HHs distribution; Poverty/Wealth) (HH wealth (HH Poverty/Wealth) assets owned by HH; type of HH; type by owned assets survey enabled to gather and gather to enabled survey number HH socio HH analyse information/data on the on information/data analyse drinking water supply; sa supply; water drinking food security; other asset other food security; sanitation; fuel used for cooking; for used fuel sanitation; Food Security (hungry seasons); (hungry Security Food (source of drinking water; type of type water; drinking (source of information/data on the following: the on information/data animals owned; floor material material and floor owned; animals The It was used to gather and analyse and to gather Itused was Survey questions (type of housing; of (type questions Survey distribution, type of assets owned; assets of type distribution, Other Socio Other I. The RIMS questionnaire covers the covers questionnaire The RIMS cultivating farmland and tools used; tools and farmland cultivating  II.  ; ; e. 200 197 and roject of the of 196 followed; barangay stage sampling stage 170 barangays; 170 - the CHARMP 2 the CHARMP farm HHs for every for farm HHs two he sampling fram sampling he establishment of the of establishment of January 2005 was 2005 January of IFAD RIMS: Practical RIMS: IFAD ls the total number of HHs in the sample barangay; (ii) barangay; sample the in HHs number of total the ls Sampling approach Sampling the second stage is theis stage the second the IFAD RIMS Practical the RIMS IFAD area of CHARMP 2, which 2, of CHARMP area in technique The sampling In defining the sample, the sample, the In defining procedure stipulated in in the stipulated procedure Sampling universe: p universe: Sampling the 30 of selection random stage is the selection the is stage sampling universe, which is which universe, sampling the overall coverage area of area coverage the overall 30 sample barangays sample 30 covers 37 municipalities and municipalities covers 37   with the with  Guidance for Impact Surveys for Impact Guidance started step first the As such, Guidance for Impact Surveys for Impact Guidance a involved This adopted. was methodology in which the first the in which methodology  females) 900 HHs 900 Sample Sample size 900 households 900 members (2,448 members males and 2,332 and males (HHs); 4,780 HHs’ 4,780 (HHs); areas; program. province; 5 5 Community enumerators; RIMs RIMs prescribed - 3 provinces each; 3 provinces iii) Get the sum of the first two digits of the serial number of any peso bill. The sum of the two digits should be smaller should be digits two the of sum The peso bill. any of serial number the of digits two the first of sum the Get iii) Survey Survey Methodology Before data entry, the entry, Before data (structured questionnaire); (structured instrument, and (c) role playing on playing (c) role and instrument, completeness and consistencies of the of consistencies and completeness questionnaire to handle organized were Teams Survey projects baseline studies, surveys and impact assessments impact and surveys studies, baseline projects day orientation of the enumerators on theon enumerators the of orientation day - Group Discussions (FGD) for outcome survey; for outcome (FGD) Discussions Group Data entry and analysis. and entry Data for CHARMP2 Programme Coordination Office Coordination Programme for CHARMP2 . One Data was gathered through the use of the the RIMS of the use through gathered was Data consisting of four consultants and 8 and consultants four of consisting   Research Supervisors, 3 Research Assistants and Assistants 3 Research Supervisors, Research of the survey questionnaire was conducted in each conducted was questionnaire survey the of . 49 including the encoders. The Team was divided was The Team the encoders. . including 49 information in all parts of the questionnaire. The data the questionnaire. of parts in all information Mobilization Officers (CMOs) deployed in CHARMP 2 in CHARMP deployed (CMOs) Officers Mobilization Use of RIMS questionnaire and organisation of Focus of organisation and questionnaire RIMS Use of into two groups consisting of a Research Associate, 3 Associate, Research a of consisting groups into two team including: (a) orientation on RIMS, (b) review and review RIMS, (b) on orientation (a) team including: questionnaires passed through rounds of checking and checking of rounds through passed questionnaires use Training Team: Training  Team (PCO), Provincial supervisors, CMOs and the survey lead survey the and CMOs supervisors, Provincial (PCO), cleaning to ensure cleaning    Data collection: 2 collection: Data leveling off on the the RIMS on off leveling generated was then entered into the IFAD the into then entered was generated   financed - and and and was Sectoral loan - Monitoring Evaluation (PME) Unit (PME) supervision responsible of the study of the Corporation Prepared by Prepared coordination – Management The The Planning Development for for the overall Multi Feb. Date 2012 2010 Sept. The barangay population in the 2007 National Census and Statistics Office (NCSO) Population was used in the construction of t of construction the in used was Population (NCSO) Office Statistics and Census National 2007 the in population The barangay officia barangay the from Get (i) procedures: following the followed barangays sampled the in HHs sample the selection of The 196 197 ( of HH/30; number total formula: the using interval sampling the Calculate start. the random be shall digits two first of The sum bill. peso another get If higher, interval. sampling than the Term - Mid Study RIMS RIMS baseline study Type CHARMP2 Philippines Document

123 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 Areas/themes Food Security; Food  Economic indicators Economic ale literacy; access to access ale literacy; Child Malnutrition and Malnutrition Child –  exposed to hungry season; to hungry exposed (female/m safe water; adequate sanitation) adequate safe water; Relationships of Malnutrition with: Malnutrition of Relationships heads; wealth index of HHs ; HHs ; of HHs index heads; wealth Other Socio Other gender of HH heads; literacy of HH literacy ofheads; HH gender .  . - 201 vey and coordinated with Provincial Coordinators Provincial with coordinated and vey from the sampling frame. sampling from the s of 1 May 2010) was used as sampling frame. The data, frame. sampling used as 2010) was May s1 of randomly selected randomly Sampling approach Sampling stage sampling technique sampling stage The second involved a two a involved The second these from (b) and selected wherein (a) 30 clusters were clusters 30 (a) wherein  were HHs sample 30 clusters, y, community mobilization and integration and mobilization community y, Sample Sample size . 199 e sample clusters and barangays were derived were barangays and clusters sample e Th backs” were backs” - s on the RIMS instrument, facilitated FGD for the outcome survey, analyzed RIMS data and prepared the report. prepared and data RIMS analyzed survey, the outcome for FGD facilitated instrument, the sRIMS on Survey Survey Methodology undertaken to verify answers. verify to undertaken The capacity/willingness of the of capacity/willingness The Accomplished questionnaires were questionnaires Accomplished data /cleaning. Few “call Few /cleaning. data the administration of the the instrument of the administration low of activities and identify constraints. identify and of activities low secured and transmitted to the Lead Team; the Lead to transmitted secured and Data collection. Data  subjected to subjected Upon the completion of the required number of HH of number required the of completion the Upon respondents, the accomplished questionnaires were questionnaires accomplished the respondents, done to monitor f monitor to done respective community assignments. Daily debriefing was debriefing Daily assignments. community respective enumerators were optimized to conduct the survey in their survey the conduct to optimized were enumerators Data entry and analysis. and entry Data  nchronized with population data at the barangay level. barangay the data at population with nchronized 198 which was which Prepared by Prepared by a team of a team by prepared the survey design/instruments and schedule of activities. It identified sample barangays for the Project Outcome Sur Outcome Project for the barangays sample It identified of activities. schedule and design/instruments survey the prepared implemented consultants Date The PME PME Unit The communit the to entry of the on basics not trained were they thus, enumerators; as acted the CMOs Strategically, cluster. the HHs within of selection in the to used be technique most appropriate the as found Walk was (RW) The Random The updated population of the 170 barangays (sampling universe) based on the latest Philippine census on population and HH (a HH and population on census Philippine the latest on based universe) (sampling barangays the 170 of population The updated nevertheless, was eventually sy eventually was nevertheless, 198 the enumerator oriented consultants The key informants. of identification for the enumerators. as served The CMOs 199 201 200 Document Type

124 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 ess activities; intervention; Land tenure; Land participation; dissemination Areas/themes management and management  Marketing practices; Marketing infrastructure support; infrastructure  Gender and age issues in issues age and Gender house and car ownership; house and Availability and reliability of reliability and Availability educational attainment, and/or attainment, educational Poverty indicators like income, like indicators Poverty  of knowledge of Level of HH and local institution local of and HH Level  community activities, leadership, activities, community and recipients of the of recipients and Water supply system constructed; system supply Water in terms of relevance, effectiven relevance, in of terms  Agricultural practices and economic and practices Agricultural Information gathered for for CHARMP2 gathered Information Feedback on trainings and seminars and trainings on Feedback  outcomes covered the following items: following the covered outcomes    stage probability - representation for every barangay. Probability because Probability barangay. every for representation al . Stages included the included Stages . Sampling approach Sampling respondent selection. respondent the survey); (iii) eligible (iii) the survey); 202 A multiA method was employed to employed method was (ii) from each barangay, a each barangay, from (ii) used systematic random sampling random systematic 25 barangays among the the 170; among barangays 25 disproportionate sampling was sampling disproportionate choose the HHs to participate in to participate the HHs choose following: (i) random selection of selection random (i) following: females) 1250 HHs; 1250 Sample Sample size 5330 members 5330 (2630 males, 2700 males, (2630 the ovement; gathering; instrument; impr question logic question - Aided Personal Aided operly encoded. operly - test results were results test - Quantitative Survey; Quantitative Survey Survey Methodology The initially developed initially The is screened and pr and screened is tune the instrument and revise for further for revise and instrument tune the - was done using a Computer a using done was version of the instrument was approved by DA by approved was the instrument of version validate efficiency and their understanding of the of their understanding and efficiency validate Instrument development ; and (2) Conduct Conduct of ; (2) and development Instrument The Study had two evaluation phases: (1) Survey (1) phases: evaluation two had The Study A session with the enumerators was conducted to conducted was the enumerators with session A Development of the survey. the of Development   The The final required to do a mock interview with test respondents to respondents with test interview mock to a do required prior to releasing the field team for the official start of data start for the official team field the to releasing prior  (DA) for comments and suggestions; Pre suggestions; and comments for (DA) also used to fine also used instrument was presented to the Department of Agriculture of Department to the presented was instrument Interviewing device to ensure that basic basic inter that to device ensure Interviewing Training. train them on how to use the instrument; Enumerators were Enumerators the instrument; to use how on train them Data encoding Data   Inc.) Asian - (ASCEND Enterprise Centre For Centre Prepared by Prepared Consultancy Development (The All(The Date 2015 Disproportionate because the sample size used is not determined by the size of the population being observed. This allows equ allows This observed. being the size population of the by determined not is size used sample the because Disproportionate 202 stage. sampling every for ensured be to had randomness survey report survey Document Type Outcomes

125 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8

farm - areas: iseases, enabled to enabled incomes, activities,

Areas/themes Anthropometry. sustained manner, sustained related questions), (iii) questions), related increased - production, and off and production, g and implementation of implementation g and

to achieve food security and security food to achieve development projects, and projects, development girls) in primary education, primary girls) in local and national economy. national local and HH Demographics; (ii) Survey (ii) Demographics; HH poverty incidence reduction, incidence poverty Through the study, impact was impact study, the Through d borne to due water sustained food production from food production sustained Indigenous Peoples (IPs) in the in (IPs) Peoples Indigenous plannin reduction in child malnutrition, child in reduction and livestock crop, e.g. sources  supply, sanitation, food security, food supply, sanitation,  increase in attendance (boys and (boys in attendance increase  other asset other fisheries utilization of natural resources in a resources of natural utilization  security of land tenure by legitimate by tenure land of security and domain ancestral their IPs over Questions (type of housing, drinking of housing, (type Questions expansion of livelihood opportunities livelihood of expansion improved/acquisition of HH assets, HH of improved/acquisition improved participation of women and women of participation improved mainstreaming IP communities in the in IP communities mainstreaming gather data on the following items: (i) items: following the data on gather reduction in the incidence of mortality of incidence the in reduction improvement in the management and management the in improvement  The RIMS Baseline Survey Baseline The RIMS water      determined in the following mainimpact following the in determined surveyed. - CADC and CADC - survey of the survey - margin of error. of margin survey and RIMS. and survey Project, or survey Project, or RIMS. Following the Following RIMS. Sampling approach Sampling rehabilitated under the under rehabilitated nd Econometrician/Statistician nd out of the 51 CIS to be CIS the out 51 of  CIS were selected in two in selected CIS were the recipient group to 900, group the recipient sample areas in the baseline the in areas sample IFAD/RIMS, some 30 sample some 30 IFAD/RIMS, respondents was re was respondents stages: (i) selection of 30 CIS 30 of selection (i) stages: The study is a is re The study a total of 1,125 to meet the the 3% meet to of total 1,125 a A total sample size of 1125 HH 1125 size of sample A total allocated to the the non to allocated This size was arrived at by fixing by at arrived size This was (25%) proportions. Then another Then proportions. (25%) CADC areas at 675 (75%) to 225 to (75%) 675 at areas CADC 225 is allotted to the control group control to the allotted is 225 for 184 1125 HHs 1125 : 30 sample : 30 Sample Sample size Parts Parts 2&3: RIMS CIS and 954 HHs 954 CIS and (3,503 members); (3,503 - - Foreign - term surveys; term ta which covered ta which CADC and control and CADC - Survey Survey Methodology respondents, namely, respondents, 411 respondents which respondents 411 were used for the study at the at study the used for were used in the survey, namely: a) namely: survey, in the used Farm Management survey (184 survey Management Farm RaFPEP/IRPEP baseline survey baseline RaFPEP/IRPEP - – of HH income and poverty incidence. poverty and of income HH CADC and control areas. The data was The data areas. control and CADC - primary data primary second part is the case studies which used the used which studies case the is part second for the 30 communal irrigation system (CIS). All the All (CIS). system irrigation communal the 30 for CADC, non CADC, the different project components were implemented; were components project the different tested structured interview schedule incorporating the incorporating schedule interview structured tested well as “with or without” project intervention. The latter intervention. project without” or as “with well consist of data coming from the the non from coming data of consist isted Projects Office (FAPSO) made adjustments in the in adjustments made (FAPSO) Office Projects isted respondents); b) Part2 b) respondents); The study is divided into two major parts: the HH survey the HH parts: major two into divided is The study randomly selecting 30 respondents per Agrarian Reform Agrarian per respondents 30 selecting randomly 1,125 HH respondents. Data were gathered using a pre using gathered were Data respondents. HH 1,125 sites Three sets of sets Three results of the three other surveys complements the the RIMS complements surveys other three the results of appropriate information obtained in the baseline and mid and the baseline in obtained information appropriate in order to come up with a total of total a with up come to in order The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist of DAR of Specialist Evaluation and The Monitoring baseline HH income data. The adjustments were done by done were adjustments The data. income HH baseline RIMS Questionnaires in Waray and Visaya Versions (954 Versions Visaya Waray and in Questionnaires RIMS (184 respondents); and, d) Focal Group discussions in 26 in discussions Group Focal d) and, respondents); (184 the inherent statistical deficiencies of the baseline survey, the baseline of deficiencies statistical the inherent of information from three classes of classes three from of information respondents); c) Part 3 Part c) respondents);  key informant interview (KII) and FGD methods. Both were Both methods. FGD (KII) and interview key informant Ass became the basis for the ‘before’ situation in the the estimation in situation ‘before’ the for the basis became HH level. The first set is the 2004 baseline survey while the while survey baseline the 2004 is set first The level. HH designed to gather information on five specific cases where five specific on information gather to designed  Four types of questionnaires types Four Community (ARC) from the baseline questionnaires. This is This questionnaires. baseline the from (ARC) Community and the case studies. The HH survey entailed the gathering the entailed survey The HH studies. case the and groups. The second set is the 2006 Mid Term RIMS survey. Considering survey. RIMS Term Mid the 2006 is set second  categorized into “before and after” project (as applicable) as applicable) project (as after” and “before into categorized the analysis relied more on the 2010 IIA da the 2010 more on relied the analysis  203 team Consultant 6 6 experts Prepared by Prepared NIA Consult. composed of composed Date 2011 2011 March Team leader, Irrigation and Post Harvest Engineer, Institutional Development Specialist, Seed Specialist, Gender Specialist a Specialist Gender Specialist, Seed Specialist, Development Institutional Engineer, Harvest Post and Irrigation leader, Team 203 FPEP a Baseline Report R (IIA) Immediate impact assessment Document Type NMCIREMP

126 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 ion to ion enabled to enabled HH Assets. HH uctivity); (ii) uctivity); acilities; (vi) acilities; of poor HH). of poor Satisfaction. rom the rom Areas/themes subcategory items covered: items o o determine the – tuation, CIS situation, CIS tuation, HHs HHs Survey enabled to gather info/data on: info/data gather to enabled (vii) Access to information; (viii) information; to Access (vii) production and prod and production marketing); (iii) HH incomes and incomes HH (iii) marketing); generated indicators: Increase in Increase indicators: generated expenditures; (iv) Membership in Membership (iv) expenditures; use of infrastructure/f use of The RaFPEP baseline The RaFPEP palay sold, buying prices of palay, of prices buying sold, palay Demographic (age, literacy); Food literacy); (age, Demographic system, IA si IA system, FGD Services, Extent of Participation and Participation of Extent Services, income from paddy farming; Support farming; paddy from income irrigators association; (v) Access and Access (v) association; irrigators gather data on the following items: (i) items: following the data on gather Concerns in relation to palay farming. to palay relation in Concerns farm system, paddy production, palay production, paddy system, farm Marketing of farm produce (volume of (volume produce farm of Marketing Rice and farming operations (average farming operations Rice and Access to extension support services; support to extension Access FGD gender and food security, participation food security, and gender buyers of produce, problems related to related problems of produce, buyers Security (hungry periods); Malnutrition; periods); (hungry Security farm size, tenure status, crops planted, status, tenure size, farm seeds situation, rice production support production rice situation, seeds ; 206 and needs that can be addressed by the projects. by addressed be can that needs and ; (ii) and 205 Baseline Survey. Baseline also to the Project’s Detailed Design; and t ed by the RaFPEP by ed t based on their membership/non membership in IAs, and then and IAs, in membership membership/non their on t based was intended to yield intended was Sampling approach Sampling focused on the farmer the on focused r situation in the CIS, and accessibility as gathered f gathered as accessibility and the CIS, in r situation Baseline Survey were a were Survey Baseline The sample farmer HHs farmer The sample random selection of 954 of selection random cover areas/clusters respondents of the the RIMS of respondents on the changes in project changes the on subset of the 954 sample 954 the subset of rehabilitation was already was rehabilitation farm management survey management farm This  respondents on the HH and HH the on respondents farmers to be interviewed to be farmers narrowed down farmer to the down narrowed ince were first classified into ‘small’ or ‘large’ systems according to the to according systems ‘large’ or ‘small’ into classified first ince were The selection of respondents of The selection completed as of March 2012. March of as completed extremely specific information specific extremely beneficiaries in the CISs which CISs the in beneficiaries conducted in the baseline study the baseline in conducted on RaFPEP. The list was further list was The RaFPEP. on mers in the subcategory to the total allocated sample size in the the CIS. size in sample allocated total to the subcategory the in mers / FGDs Survey: 97 Survey: 26 participants FGD: 5. 100 FGD: 5. respondents Sample Sample size respondents; mation mation as basis in evaluating the progress of the RaFPEP in terms of outputs, outcomes 456 456 participants ; 204 of the study; of the hand hand (farmer HH) infor - baseline output baseline Survey Survey Methodology Term Review. Itincluded: Term Review. relation and/or regression and/or relation - HH Level Survey; and (ii) FGD; (ii) and Level Survey; HH – seasons following the completion the following seasons . The survey focused on the 24 irrigation the on 24 focused survey . The five study provinces (Northern Leyte, Northern Samar, Western Samar, Bukidnon and Lanao Norte) in Regions 8 and 10 in proport 10 and 8 in Regions Norte) Lanao and Bukidnon WesternSamar, Samar, Northern Leyte, (Northern study provinces five enumerators/supervisors understand the understand enumerators/supervisors tream, downstream). Based on constructed listings following the stratification, sample farmers were drawn at random for for each at random drawn were farmers sample stratification, the following listings constructed on Based downstream). tream, association/relations among key key variables. among association/relations analysis were performed to establish statistical to establish performed were analysis one interview one - on - to the enumeration, training was conducted to ensure conducted was training enumeration, to the e use of a variety of methodologies served to validate served methodologies of variety of e a use charts/graphs. Moreover, cor Moreover, charts/graphs. One Data were analyzed and presented in tabular forms and forms in tabular presented and analyzed were Data of CIS rehabilitation. Enumerators and supervisors were supervisors and Enumerators of rehabilitation. CIS Th HH level survey level HH systems with completed rehabilitation works as of March of as works rehabilitation completed with systems A combination of sample farm HH survey, FGDs and KIIs and FGDs survey, HH farm sample of combination A in the context of the Project Mid Project the of context in the (i) hired, guided by a survey questionnaire and manual. manual. Prior and questionnaire survey a by guided hired,  and confirm data sets which help to affirm the veracity and the veracity affirm to help sets which data confirm and   2012. This includes IAs with trainings already provided and provided already trainings with IAs includes This 2012. consistency of information gathered and data consolidated; data and gathered information of consistency has cropped for at least 2 least for at cropped has were undertaken to generate the primary data requirements data primary the generate to undertaken were The conduct of surveys was among the activities carried out carried the activities among was surveys of The conduct   - PCO Prepared by Prepared Coordinated by RaFPEP by economic situation of target beneficiary farmers (women and men) of RaSSFiP and IRPEP and their HHs including their capacity their including their HHs and IRPEP and men)RaSSFiP of and (women farmers beneficiary target of situation economic - Date 2013 The The Part 2 and Part 3 surveys were designed to generate primary and first At stage 2, sample farmer HHs were drawn for each selected CIS using stratified random sampling. Farmers were classified firs classified were Farmers sampling. random stratified using CIS for each selected drawn HHs were farmer sample stage 2, At At stage 1, the 30 sample CIS was allocated to the to allocated was CIS sample the 30 stage 1, At the total number of CIS situated within the covered province. Before selecting the CIS to be surveyed, all CIS in each prov each in all CIS surveyed, to be the CIS selecting Before province. covered the within situated CIS of number the total orde peace and the on information the based on identified was surveyed to be The CIS CIS. the within listed farmers number of pretest. 206 mids (upstream, CIS the within to location according far of number total of share the to was proportionate category for each sample the size of The CIS. the selected within 204 and impacts as indicated in the updated Programme Logical Framework and appropriate indicators in IFAD’s RIMS with reference socio current 205 Term - Mid Report Document Type

127 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 ; of ate d verage Average Literacy nature of nature  surements Areas/themes questionnaire: facility of HHs); facility of ector; (s hungry seasons); hungry registration details); registration tools for cultivating); for tools Main areas covered; areas Main (experienced 1st and (experienced dwelling floor; a dwelling ( (Electricity and ownership and (Electricity Main items covered in the covered items Main evel of development; of evel number of sleeping rooms); sleeping number of usiness b children to assess the level of level the assess to children Measures of Business Activity Business of Measures the business was established; the business was  (Average annual sales; annual (Average Housing nutrition of children in the family; the in children nutrition of Anthropometric mea Anthropometric  Food security Food  hungry season; average duration of duration average season; hungry operating/overhead costs; Business costs; operating/overhead vehicle/transportation; Ownership of Ownership vehicle/transportation; when cooking; Involvement in farming and farming in Involvement cooking; poultry/livestock; Average number of number Average poultry/livestock; l business; HH Assets HH (Main source of drinking water; Toilet water; drinking source of (Main of common appliances; Ownership of Ownership appliances; common of  Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation and Supply Water Drinking General Information General 2nd hungry seasons; duration of each of seasons; duration hungry 2nd poultry/livestock; Type of fuel used for used fuel of Type poultry/livestock; annual costs of sales; Average annual Average sales; of costs annual    . 209 afts). Cr redited MFI redited said change. said least two BDS two least In identifying survey In identifying finalized after impact after finalized Sampling approach Sampling method, though a slight a though method, for at least two cycles of two least for at borrowing were given the given were borrowing The sampling design was design The sampling municipalities and industry and municipalities (Bamboo, Processed Food, Processed (Bamboo, highest priority was given to given was highest priority GHD, Coffee, Marine and IP and Marine Coffee, GHD, beneficiaries (HH level) after level) (HH beneficiaries have availed of microfinance of availed have interventions/assistance were interventions/assistance amar, Leyte, Northern Samar and Samar); Caraga (Agusan del Norte, del (Agusan Caraga Samar); and Samar Northern Leyte, amar, modification was introduced was modification highest priority. For MEPD, the MEPD, For highest priority. and surveyed by doing the RW doing by surveyed and loans from SBC acc SBC from loans provided and identify reason for identify reason and provided respondents for MCS, MEs who MEs for MCS, respondents MEs who have participated in at in participated have MEs who family. same the from come all that respondents ving clusters had been fully fully identified been had clusters The HHs were randomly chosen randomly The HHs were he choice was arbitrary, but skipping two houses when the sample size needed is needed size sample the when houses two skipping but arbitrary, was choice he : 208 tuation, communal irrigation systems situationer systems irrigation communal tuation, provinces. ’ members ’ among 550 among covering 19 covering Sample Sample size provinces HHs 2,651 females). 2,651 1057 HHs; 1057 5,273 (2,622 males and (2,622 Survey conducted Survey six regions and 19 and regions six recipients from the from recipients Five priority regions priority Five , - effects effects on framework; Survey Survey Methodology Business Development Business ng performance through performance ng Micro Entreprises (MEs) Entreprises Micro tools putting emphasis on emphasis putting tools HHs, - es for the conduct of the survey; the of conduct the for es Programme and the IFAD RIMS; IFAD the and Programme was iterative in terms of process. of terms in iterative was SARGEN (Sarangani and South Cotabato). South and (Sarangani SARGEN To validate results of the FGDs gather FGDs the of results To validate . implementers were also conducted (KII). conducted also were implementers Survey conducted using a questionnaire. using conducted Survey 207 providers. These included the HH Surveys HH the included These providers.  pronged data gathering approach within the within approach data gathering pronged - tools tabulations, correlation and regression analysis regression and correlation tabulations, Methods used in the paper to analyze to the paper in used Methods Multi Participatory Resource System Appraisal (PRSA) Appraisal System Resource Participatory additional on implementation, interviews with field with interviews implementation, on additional performance indicators before and after RUMEPP after and before indicators performance Use of simple analytical simple Use of  various data sets in consonance with the the analytical with consonance in sets data various concepts/procedur frequency counts and means/averages; (ii) Test on Test (ii) means/averages; and counts frequency  framework to generate primary baseline information baseline primary to generate framework  triangulation/iteration and establishing relationship of relationship establishing and triangulation/iteration implementation at midterm include: (i) Comparison of Comparison (i) include: midterm at implementation cross 5 5 FGD Anchored on the Logical Framework developed by the by developed Framework the Logical on Anchored test); (iii) Relating factors affecti factors Relating test); (iii)  concerned stakeholders concerned  Service Service (BDS) supplemented by secondary data available cutting across available data secondary by supplemented stages by undertaken Study although Baseline The entire Data Survey (SDS) for the MEs, MFIs, and BDS providers; BDS and MFIs, the MEs, for (SDS) Survey Data significance of means (differences in means/averages eg t eg means/averages in means (differences of significance microfinance institutions (MFIs) and (MFIs) institutions microfinance using structured questionnaire and FGD, KII and Secondary and KII FGD, and questionnaire structured using  Consultant Prepared by Prepared Larry N. Digal, Larry April Date 2010 Nov. 2011 (Abra, Kalinga, Ifugao); Bicol (Albay, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate and Sorsogon); Eastern Visayas (Biliran, Eastern S Eastern (Biliran, Visayas Eastern Sorsogon); and Masbate Catanduanes, Sur, Camarines (Albay, Bicol Ifugao); Kalinga, (Abra, would have already required an enumerator to walk an entire stretch of 30 houses. The modification was introduced to avoid ha avoid to introduced was modification The houses. of 30 stretch entire an to walk an enumerator required already have would ommunity situation and rice production, marketing situation, rice production support systems, irrigation associations (IA) si (IA) associations irrigation systems, support production rice situation, marketing production, rice and situation ommunity Term - MEPP C CAR T houses. three or two say by sampling, in skipped were houses few a sample, the of members as HHs adjacent taking of Instead 208 SOCCSK and Sur) del Surigao and Norte del Surigao Sur, del Agusan 209 only 10 207 Results RUMEPP Mid Outcome Survey Analysis of Analysis Ru Baseline study Document Type

128 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 ; ; ); the : (i) : etric BDS; usiness b easons or easons trainings); themes Particulars n Particulars (r adoption, or adoption, o attachment – Areas/themes vis the the baseline vis ee - BDS s ffect Credit à Credit Awareness Credit e -   , l and three and l of women ofemployed); women as taken into account in account asinto taken /Activities by the the Providers by /Activities General of BDS on Firm’s Business Firm’s on BDS of the RIMS ( the RIMS questions meant to elicit meant questions Evaluation of the Conduct of the Conduct of Evaluation  ffordability The outcome study measured study The outcome changes changes vis Business Activity (e.g. average (e.g. Activity Business a The survey instrument included instrument The survey situation in key indicators of the of indicators key in situation low level of adoption of the BDS the ofof level adoption low  Training analysed in lieu of the econom the of in lieu analysed approach used in previous studies. in previous used approach Effects average annual direct cost of sales; cost directof annual average the following main areas/ the following General Information; (ii) Measure of Measure (ii) Information; General Extent of BDS Adoption BDS Extent of assets size; Market for products; No products; for Market size; assets The standard questionnaire covered questionnaire The standard by which changes in their their operations in changes which by  author believed could generate more generate could believed author constraints for the non for the constraints from acquired concepts/technologies Programme logical framework and of and framework logical Programme  General can be attributed to the assistance by the assistance to can attributed be Credit  the degree to as opinion respondents’ RuMEPP. These questions, which the which questions, These RuMEPP. effective measures of attribution, were attribution, of measures effective  annual sales; volume and sales value; sales and volume sales; annual  

cted stage - method. same time they were asked to provide their current provide to asked were they time same programme. activities/trainings. th MCS and MEPD. and MCS th therefore. Nevertheless, this issue w this issue Nevertheless, therefore. since the start of the start of the since Sampling approach Sampling articipated in at least 2 least at in articipated registered MEs from the sample and added questions in their in questions added and sample the from MEs registered - clients using a two clients using given the highest priority. the highest given MEPD and both MCS and MCS both and MEPD stratified random sampling random stratified ormation at the at ormation the basis the MEs’ location the MEs’ the basis services received, i.e. MCS, i.e. received, services and p and BDS activities/trainings were BDS activities/trainings A sample MEs were sele were MEs sample A of type and country) the all of have borrowed for two cycles for two borrowed have from the list of RuMEPP’s ME RuMEPP’s of the list from MEs that have received MCS, received that have MEs MEPD services from RuMEPP from services MEPD Convergence respondents who respondents Convergence The survey was administered to administered was The survey The stratifications were done on done were The stratifications bo or MEPD (RuMEPP reaches 19 provinces 19 reaches (RuMEPP

MEs) of 597 Sample Sample size clients (which from the list of the list from totalled 45,873 RuMEPP’s ME RuMEPP’s A sample A MEs were selected MEs were . gistered MEs in the Programme areas” are better assessed using actual records available from available records actual using assessed better are areas” Programme the in gistered MEs 1). 211 , the 210 rt of intervention, where respondents are assessed for baseline information, and (ii) after the intervention, where the intervention, after (ii) and information, for baseline assessed are respondents where intervention, rt of Survey Survey Methodology assess specific outcomes specific assess experiment method, the study randomly selected 120 non 120 selected study randomly the method, experiment - against their current status; current their against test evaluation design evaluation test - test/post - undertaken to determine whether RuMEPP whether determine to undertaken records maintained by the RuMEPP PMO the RuMEPP by maintained records which RuMEPP contributed to changes in the in changes to contributed RuMEPP which did not cover all outcome statements included statements all outcome cover did not motivating factors for registering their businesses. The set of 120 MEs was divided into four subsets representing one contro one representing subsets four into divided was MEs 120 set of The their businesses. registering for factors motivating made a difference in the lives of its target MEs by target MEs its of the lives in a made difference identified in the RuMEPP logical framework matrix; framework logical the RuMEPP in identified parts were to be assessed at some later time using time later some at to assessed be parts were a modified pre modified a before they obtained assistance from the programme from the assistance obtained they before survey comparing the state of some of their known attributes known their of some state of the comparing statistics obtained from public records or from internal or records public from obtained statistics to RuMEPP’s client MEs were used to understand the used to understand were MEs client to RuMEPP’s survey design was meant meant to was design survey extent to extent survey was survey in the RuMEPP logical framework matrix. The excluded matrix. framework logical in the RuMEPP outcome indicators affecting its target groups (see Annex (see target groups its affecting indicators outcome The The from a supplementary qualitative survey to administered be survey qualitative supplementary from a While there was no control groups to be examined, findings examined, to be groups control no was there While Using     Lozari, Enrique E. Enrique posttest survey is done at two periods: (i) before the sta the periods: before (i) two is at survey done posttest Consultant - Prepared by Prepared Date 2013 March For example, outcome statements such as “10% annual increase in the number of new, re new, of the number in increase annual “10% as such statements outcome example, For A typical pretest typical A program recipients are assessed for outcomes. In this current survey, the respondents were asked to recall their baseline inf their baseline recall to asked were respondents the survey, current In this outcomes. for assessed are program recipients bias. recall mitigate to coordinators provincial RuMEPP by validated and supervised guided, was process The status. 211 survey, in this measured be not could MEs total of increase An annual RuMEPP. by covered are MEs all not as local governments the questionnaire of version abbreviated an Using methodology. the possible respondents’ the elicit to forms survey 210 - of - Program Outcome Survey Results Analysis of Analysis End Document Type

129 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8 - Areas/themes it on business) it on g.evaluation of g.evaluation utlets or branches); or utlets articulars (e. articulars of RuMEPP’s cred of RuMEPP’s adoption or low level of adoption of adoption of level low or adoption average annual indirect costs; asset costs; indirect annual average (iv) Credit Particulars (e.g. the the effect (e.g. Particulars Credit (iv) of adopting them to firm’s business? firm’s to them of adopting size; marketing o marketing size; BDS; reasons or constraints for for non constraints or reasons BDS; by the RuMEPP BDS events ; effects ; events BDS the RuMEPP by (iii) BDS p (iii) BDS the concepts or technologies imparted technologies or the concepts . 213 cting stage - sampling the the respondents. design was used for used design was rank them based on the reasons’ relevance to them. relevance reasons’ the on based them rank Sampling approach Sampling - force The sampling of the survey the of The sampling list as the frame for sele for the frame list as used the program beneficiary program used the A complex stratified multi stratified complex A . 212 PP RuMEPP - survey was survey Sample Sample size respondents provinces beneficiaries Based on the Based on . 775 RuME 775 non conducted in 4 conducted were randomly were 10) sampling design, sampling - (treatment group) (treatment regions covering 14 covering regions (control group). The (control group). selected and 742 for 742 and selected ness population; elaborated by elaborated - project components; project Survey Survey Methodology presentative of the project the of presentative methodology by the DLSU: the by methodology t participants, these were only were these participants, t collected by DLSU was re was DLSU by collected only current business owners being retained for retained being owners current business only comparison. This leaves a final sample of 1303. of sample a final leaves This comparison. of data collection. This meant that no appropriate no that meant This collection. of data ithin each region stratum, and randomly selecting randomly and stratum, region ithin each selected from those registered as participating in both in participating as registered those from selected Few control HHs could be found that had owned a ME owned had that found be could control HHs Few sampling strategy involved randomly selecting districts selecting randomly involved strategy sampling With regard to the projec the to With regard that this sample is not fully re fully not is sample this that from w  had ceased during the project's lifetime, leading to 214 to of 214 leading lifetime, project's the during ceased had  not engage with both of the project components, meaning components, the project both of with not engage during the baseline period but did not own one at the the time at one not own did but period the baseline during probability proportional to their number of registered MEs; of registered number their to proportional probability each municipality, barangays (villages) were selected with selected were (villages) barangays municipality, each the sampled project HHs being dropped from analysis and from analysis dropped HHs being project the sampled There were a large amount of project beneficiaries that did that beneficiaries project amount of a large were There municipalities from within each district stratum. From within From stratum. district each from within municipalities The adopting a different methodology compared to the the previous to compared methodology a different adopting counterfactual are available for similar HHs whose busi whose HHs for similar available are counterfactual   The analysis of data of The analysis study. In particular, the following criticalities were found in the in found were criticalities the following In study. particular, the and 2015 owners, enterprise analysis of analysis Knowledge and control and primary primary HH survey data survey SalleLa De based based upon from project by collected Prepared by Prepared econometric in University Department, IFAD, strategy IFAD, Date 2016 Due to the devastating effect of super typhoon Yolanda, Region 8 was excluded from the survey the from excluded 8 was Region Yolanda, typhoon super of effect devastating the to Due 7 (pages document the in specified is method sampling the of development the on information Detailed experiment groups. The MEs were given a set of possible reasons why they would apply for a business permit and asked to asked and permit for a business apply would they why reasons set possible a of given were The MEs groups. experiment 212 213 Impact evaluation Document Type

130 Appendix II – Annex XII EB 2017/121/R.8

RuMEPP supplementary qualitative survey

131 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

List of key persons met

Government (in Manila) Mr Virgilio R. de Los Reyes, Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) R. G. Tungpalan, Deputy Director General, National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Laura Pascua, Undersecretary, Budget Policy and Strategy, Department of Budget Management (DBM) Patrocinio Jude H. Esguerra III, Undersecretary, National Anti-Poverty Commission Atty. Emerson Palad, Undersecretary for Operations, Agribusiness and Marketing, Department of Agriculture Herman Z.Ongkiko, Undersecretary, Foreign Assisted and Special Projects, DAR Zenaida Cuison Maglaya, Undersecretary, Regional Operations Group, Department of Trade and Industry Stella C. Laureano, Director, International Finance Group, Department of Finance Donalyn Minimo, International Finance Group, Department of Finance Nelson A. Ambat, International Finance Group, Department of Finance Violeta S. Corpus, Officer-in-Charge, Monitoring and Evaluation Section, NEDA Dinna Manlangit, Monitoring & Evaluation Staff, NEDA Nikki Ann Bermudez, Monitoring & Evaluation Staff, NEDA Rhonel M. Santos, Monitoring & Evaluation Staff, NEDA Jesse T David, Monitoring and Evaluation Staff, NEDA Aleli F. Lopez-Dee, Monitoring and Evaluation Staff, NEDA Maria Luisa R. Magbojos, Public Investment Staff, NEDA Calixto M. Mangilin, Jr., Public Investment Staff, NEDA Milva L. Carinan, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Staff, NEDA Nheden Amiel D. Sarne, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Staff, NEDA Ted T. Terrenal, Chief Budget and Management Specialist, DBM Dinna Marie R. Estrada, Senior Budget Management Specialist, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Bureau, DBM Russelle E. Vinoya, Budget Management Specialist I, DBM Mildred F. Ople, Executive Assistant III, DBM Vilma Gorospe, Assistant Director, Budget and Management Bureau (BMB) for Food Security, Ecological Protection and Climate Change Management Sector (FSEPCCMS), DBM Maria Cecilia Socorro M. Abogado, Supervising Budget Management Specialist, BMB for FSEPCCMS, DBM Lilibeth C. Cuadra, Chief, Budget and Management Specialist, Budget and Management Bureau, Economic Development Sector, DBM Ma. Susana G. Perez, Project Development Officer/Desk Officer for IFAD-Assisted Projects, Department of Agrarian Reform Lucienne S. Pulgar, DAR Project Management Service

132 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Edilbert de Luna, Assistant Secretary, Department of Agriculture Christopher Morales, Director, Field Operations, Department of Agriculture Arnel V. De Mesa, National Deputy Project Director, Philippine Rural Development Project, Department of Agriculture Ada A. Estrada, Division Chief, Special Project Coordination and Management Assistance Division (SPCMAD), Department of Agriculture Evelyn L. Valeriano, SPCMAD, Department of Agriculture Ester Aida G. Simbajon, SPCMAD, Department of Agriculture Arsenia Perez, Department of Agriculture Renato P. Manantan, Regional Executive Director, Negros Island Region (ex-RaFPEP Programme Coordinator) Sofia Quillope, Project Development Officer, RaFPEP PCO, Department of Agriculture Chelsie Ann Pascual, Project Development Officer, RaFPEP PCO Melody B. Abarquez, Project and Evaluation Officer, RaFPEP PCO Mark Lester R. Reid, Project and Evaluation Officer, RaFPEP PCO Jerry T. Clavesillas, Director III, Bureau of Small and Medium Enterprise Development (BSMED), Department of Trade and Industry Elvira P. Tan, Division Chief, BSMED, Department of Trade and Industry Aralyn C. Buenafrancisca, Director, Resource Generation Management Services, Department of Trade and Industry May P. Cruz, Resource Generation Management Services, Department of Trade and Industry Maricar Roco, BSMED, Department of Trade and Industry Chndyli Tara Roger, BSMED, Department of Trade and Industry Eda B. Soriano, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Mary Edestin Henson, DENR Conrad Bravante Jr., Chief, Project Management Division, Foreign-Assisted & Special Projects Service (FASPS), DENR Francis Joseph Abello, Water Management Specialist, NPCO (National Project Coordination Office), DENR Johanna San Pedro, Project Development Specialist, NPCO, DENR Rizalyn Nepomoceno, Finance Specialist, NPCO, DENR Ariel Erasga, Social Development Specialist, NPCO, DENR Leovina Cayao, Head – Administration and Finance, NPCO, DENR Percival Cardona, Head Planning, NPCO, DENR Patricia Cainghog, M&E Specialist, NPCO, DENR Joy Perico, Administrative Assistant III, NPCO, DENR Eddie Abugan, Project Preparation Division, FASPS, DENR Rolly Carbon, Project Monitoring & Evaluation Division, FASPS, DENR Socrates Bartolo, Project Management Division, FSPS, DENR

133 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Mariano Catan, Project Coordinator, Irrigated Rice Production Enhancement Project (IRPEP) - RaFPEP, National Irrigation Administration Leo L. Gallego, CDO IV, National Irrigation Administration (IRPEP Institutional Strengthening component) Jessica Munoz, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Nikkin Beronilla, Policy Monitoring and Social Technology Services, National Anti-Poverty Commission Lee T. Arroyo, OIC Executive Director, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Dominador Gomez, Regional Commissioner for Western and Northern Mindanao, NCIP (former NMCIREMP staff) International and donor institutions Praveen Agrawal, Representative and Country Director, World Food Programme Jose Luis Fernandez, FAO Representative Aristeo A. Portugal, Assistant FAO Representative (Programme) Jinfeng Zhang, Director, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Division, Southeast Asia Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB) Su Chin Teoh, Country Specialist Southeast Asia Department, ADB Marzia Mongiorigi-Lorenzo, Unit Head, Project Administration, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Division, Southeast Asia Department, ADB Karen Chua, Southeast Asia Department, ADB Marco Gatti, Principal Evaluation Specialist, Independent Evaluation Department, ADB Frauke Jungbluth, Sector Coordinator, World Bank Carolina V. Figueroa-Geron, Lead Rural Development Specialist, World Bank Maria Theresa G. Quinones, Senior Operations Officer, World Bank Yuko Tanaka, Senior Representative, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Kumiko Ogawa, Project Formulation Advisor (SMEs Business Support and Agriculture), JICA Non-governmental organizations and associations Raoul Soctrates Banzuela, National Confederation of Small Farmers’ and Fishers’ Organisations (PAKISAMA) Elena V Rebagay, Policy advisory Officer, Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA) Estrella Dizon-Añonueva, Executive Director, ATIKHA Overseas Workers and Communities Initiative Inc. Connie G Hina, Chief Technical Director, ACCESS Advisory Marlene Ramirez, Secretary General, Asia Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Asia (AsiaDHRRA) Dave de Vera, Executive Director, Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID) Research and training institutions Kharmina Paolo A Anit, Researcher, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

134 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Regine Joy P Evangelista, Researcher, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Arma Betuso, Senior Research Associate, International Potato Centre (CIP) Digna Orduña Manzanilla, Scientist (Social Science) and Coordinator, Consortium for Unfavorable Rice Environments (CURE), International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) IFAD staff Omer Zafar, Country Programme Manager, Asia and the Pacific Division (APR) Benoit Thierry, ex-Country Programme Manager for the Philippines, APR Tawfiq El-Zabri, Programme Officer, APR Yolando Arban, Country Programme Officer, APR Vivian Azore, Country Programme Assistant, APR Other resource persons Tony Quizon, consultant

Cordillera Administrative Region (31 March - 6 April 2016) CHARMP2 Project Support Office, Regional Field Office, Department of Agriculture Cameron P. Odsey, Project Manager, CHARMP2 Aida Pagtan, Social Mobilization and Participatory Investment Planning component - Coordinator Bal Claver, Community Watershed Conservation, Forest Management and Agro-forestry (CWCFMA) component - Coordinator Leonora Verzola, Agriculture, Agribusiness and Income Generating Activities (AAIGA) component - Coordinator Sonny Salvacion, Rural Infrastructure Development (RID) component - Assistant Coordinator Francisco Mayapit, RID - Engineer Charles Picpican, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) - Coordinator Robert Domoguen, Information and Knowledge Management Unit (IKMU) Coordinator Crislyn Balangen, IKMU Staff Janice Agrifino, IKMU Staff Chester Cayabas, AAIGA component - Rural Finance Officer Jon Ray Waking, AAIGA Staff Reagan Codmos, CWCFMA- Forester George Astudillo, CWCFMA - Forester Isabel Tejo, PME Officer Joyce Anaydos, PME Officer Joel Briones, PME Officer Nympha Akilith, PME Officer Jake Beta-A, CHARM 2- Admin Daniel T. Dalilis, Project Admin Officer Maribel Vicente, Admin-Procurement Officer

135 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Arvin Balageo, Budget Unit Staff Rose Balio, PC-Benguet Admin Staff Judelyn Bangnan, Budget Unit Staff Michelle Mendoza CHARMP2 Provincial Coordination Offices (PCOs) Gabriel Pacio, Provincial Coordinator - Benguet Digna Villanueva, Provincial Coordinator - Apayao Rosemarie Tesoro, Provincial Coordinator – Abra Province Beverly Pekas, Provincial Coordinator, Mount Province Benny Mangili, Provincial Agribusiness Facilitator, PCO Benguet Sherry Lyne Tomin, Institutional Development Officer, PCO Benguet Cynthia Rose Backian, Community Development Facilitator, PCO Benguet Dolores Wesley, Community Development Facilitator, PCO Benguet Sherry Lyne Tomin, Institutional Development Officer, PCO Benguet Rose Balio, Admin Staff, PCO Benguet Mary Ann Fianza, Provincial Rural Infrastructure Engineer, PCO Benguet Teofilo Badival, AP Benguet, PCO Benguet Benny Mangili, CHARMP PCO Benguet Patrick Shontogan, PCO Benguet Florence Manegdeg, Provincial Supervisor, PCO Mount Province Randy Baguitan, Provincial Rural Infrastructure Engineer, PCO Mount Province Greil Danglose, Community Development Facilitator, PCO Mount Province Merand Adehong, Community Development Facilitator, PCO Mount Province Edgar Pandosen, Assisting Professional, PCO Mount Province Sheina Babkeg, Roving Bookkeeper – PCO Mount Province April Cyprene Potpoten, Institutional Development Officer, PCO Mount Province Erniella Napadao, Admin Asst. PCO Mount Province Victor Degay Jr., Roving Bookkeeper – PCO Mount Province Joderick T. Guron, Assisting Professional, PCO Mount Province Aida David, Provincial Agribusiness Facilitator, PCO Mount Province Pablo Bayubay, Provincial Supervisor, PCO Kalinga Consuelo Aligo, PCO Kalinga Merry Mae Pay-ONG, RB – PCO Kalinga Jornalyn Aglipay, Provincial Agribusiness Facilitator, PCO Kalinga Isabel Compas, Provincial Agribusiness Facilitator, PCO Kalinga Ruben Ganagan, Community Development Facilitator, PCO Kalinga Felicitas Balmores, Institutional Development Officer, PCO Kalinga Harel A Padcayan, Admin, PCO Kalinga

136 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Mir Hazen Sallaya, Provincial Rural Infrastructure Engineer, PCO Kalinga Aguinaldo Sicnawa, Community Development Facilitator, PCO Kalinga Dennis Guisoben, AP, PCO Kalinga Harel Padcayan, Admin - PCO Kalinga National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Emilia Challongen, Community Affairs Officer, NCIP-CAR Regional Office Virginia A. Sally, Officer-in-Charge, NCIP Mountain Province Engr. Bruno Almora, Provincial Engineer, NCIP Benguet Province Bayabas (barangay), Sablan (Municipality), Benguet Province (1 April 2016) Nicomedes L. Catiguing, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, LGU-Sablan Ramon Anacioco, MAO, LGU-Sablan Helen Cachero, BBTUFA B.M., Bayabas, Sablan Alma Billy, BBTUFA SEC., Bayabas, Sablan Prescilla Marcos, Amoric SEC., Bayabas, Sablan Leonor Baron, Amoric TREAS., Bayabas, Sablan Jerome Calado, PT, Sablan Mario Madayag, AA-VI, LGU-Sablan Lolita Bentres, Provincial Agriculturalist, Provincial LGU Benguet Miichelle Busacay, Municipal Engineer, LGU-Sablan Froda Lyn Namoro, Treas Barangay Benjamin Lorena, Bawasa, Calamay Alexious Bartolome, MCWASA, Inc., Monglo Bayabas Jeffrey T Camposaho, MCWASA, Inc., Monglo Bayabas Cornelio Almacen, Barangay Kagawad (Barangay Councillor), LGU-Bayabas Marilyn Albuto, MCWASA, Inc., Monglo, Bayabas Arthur C. Baldo, Municipal Mayor, Sablan Teofilo Anacioco, Punong Barangay (Barangya Captain), Bayabas, Sablan Juanito Pegado, Barangay Kagawad (Barangay Councillor), Batawil Charles A Ciano, AA IV, Bayabas, Sablan Julius Lawana, AFA Member, Tinekey, Bayabas Agustina B. Ambes, Amoric President, Monglo Bayabas Ermita V. Igme, Amoric Member, Bayabas, Sablan Jefferson Carame, Barangay Kagawad (Barangay Councillor), Monglo Bayabas Andrew Quilino, CAWSO PRES., Bayabas, Sablan Arlene Quinoan, KMPC Member, Bulala, Bayabas Suhana Anacioco, KMPC Member, Bulala, Bayabas Marciana Ciano, KMPC Member, Bulala, Bayabas Norma Anacioco, KMPC Member, Bulala, Bayabas

137 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Ricardo S. Ciano, KMPC Member, Bulala, Bayabas Jefferson Holmar, W/PLGU Benguet, PLGU Benguet Wilson Cosme, W/PLGU Benguet, PLGU Benguet Margaret Cales, Batufa, Bayabas, Sablan Susana Amboy, Calamay Waterworks, Bayabas, Sablan Glory Tacay, Bayabas Swine Raisers, Bayabas, Sablan Cristia Cales, Bayabas Swine Raisers, Bayabas, Sablan Gilbert Wakat, Goat Raisers Group, Bayabas, Sablan Elmer Macalingay, Businessman (near Baguio) Meeting with Provincial Management Group, Benguet Province (1 April 2016) Peter T. Begawen Jr., LGU Kapangan Kolbel H. Acquilapat, LGU-Kibungan Cornelio Colyong, LGU-Bakun Andres Noel Mensi, LGU-Bokod Tuho Chapdian, Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator Rose Badival, Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO) Mike P. Epie, PPDO Rubelyin Felix, PPDO Maria Luisa Baban, PPDO Diana Magallano, PPDO Romy Balangay, PPDO Purita Julian, Provincial Veterinarian, Benguet Colin Lumbican, Provincial Agribusiness Facilitator Julus TO Kollin, PLGU Benguet Johnny L. Jose, Office of Provincial Agriculture, Benguet Lolit Bentres, Office of Provincial Agriculture, Benguet Delfin S. Rufino, MA, LGU-Buguias Nicomedes Caliquing, MPDC-Sablan E. Camhit, Kapangan Maximo Sumale, Benguet Environment and Natural Resource Office, Benguet Johnny Carlos, LGU Buguias Crescencia Lozano, LGU Bakun Cherry Sano, LGU Atok Bruno H. Almora Jr., NCIP Benguet Bila (Barangay), Bokod (Municipality), Benguet Province (2 April 2016) Andres Noel Mensi, LGU Bokod Gerardo Beray, MAO, Bokod Ray S. Beray, LGU Bokod

138 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Marlon Binay-An, Barangay LGU Alpha Gattuc, BGY SEC Concepcion P. Lictag, KTMPC Jose Ballagan, Bila Irrigators Community Water Sanitation Association (BICWASA), President Gelline P. Calao-AN, BICWASA LIG Albert Polkero, Agroforestry People's Organization, Member Nelson Tampoc, Irrigators' Association, President Leo Emilio, Bila Indigenous People Farmers Association (BIPFA), President Novina B. Alex, BIPFA Member Daisy Labenio, BIPFA Member Rosaline P. Marino, BIPFA Member Aurora Esmil, BIPFA Member Estela Montes, BIPFA Member Albia Tampoc, BIPFA Member Rita Maxion, BIPFA Member Agustina Madilat, BIPFA Member Balbina Cobiaran, BIPFA Member Imelda Pacya, BIPFA Member Evelyn Betres, BIPFA Member Jona Tampoc, BIPFA Member Genie Sumali, BIPFA Member Daisy Labenio, BIPFA Member I-IDIA B Bandro, BIPFA Member Bernice Labenio, BIPFA Member Agustina Dolteo, BIPFA Member Aurea Esmil, BIPFA Member Erlinda Espara, BIPFA /Aduyon Bila Association (ABA) Gleceria Q. Plan, Community Member FRONUS Felix, Bila Bokod Leon Tayambong, Community Member Elvira Martin, Bila Bokod Dalisay Jackfrey, Community Member Oliver Binay-AN Strawberry Esmil, Community Member Ella M. Calao-AN, Kapya LIG Maylen Espara, Community Member Valentina A. Jacinto, Kapya LIG Warina Thomas-Baldazan, Community Member Vincent Biadno Kabayan (Municipality), Benguet Province (2 April 2016) Judileen Gayaso, LGU Poblacion Rogel Kents D. Bastian, Community Development Officer Berry Sangao Jr., Municipal Planning and Development Officer, Kabayan Maximo Sumale, Benguet Environment and Natural Resource Office, Provincial LGU, Benguet Genny Binaliw, Municipal Agriculture Officer Albert Batanes, Office of Municipal Agriculture Merlyn Torres, PPWD Nora Mayomis, Pasco, Choschos, Besang, Dutac (Pachobedu) Group Sylvia Baucas, Pasco Producers of Coffee Association Inc. (Paprocoai) Johnny Todiano, Kabayan Federation of Farmers Association Inc. (KFFAI) Cherry Songco, KFFAI

139 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Ambrosio Aquisan, KFFAI Rudy S. Kingay, Gusaran Multi-purpose Cooperative (GMPC), Gusaran Rosalina Ebas, GMPC Gusaran Alicia Sinong, GMPC Gusaran Shirley Alingay, GMPC Gusaran Nelia Budikey, GMPC Gusaran Felomina Masegman, GMPC Gusaran Marcelinda Caslangan, Association of Ballay Community Developers (ABCD) Norma Binay-AN, ABCD Siana Maging, ABCD Laurence T. Alingoy, ABCD Rita D. Alod, Kabayan Food Terminal Association (KFTA) Adaoay Marina Comia, KFTA Adaoay Jocelyn Abad, KFTA Adaoay Julie Badival, KFTA Adaoay Felicitas P. Atos, KFTA Adaoay Martina E. Bugtong, Bashoy Farmers Consumers Cooperative (BFCC) Bashoy Susan Guinoran, BFCC Bashoy Cristina Minas, Morning Shinner LIG Tessie Walac, Nanang's Touch Group Nelly Minas, Morning Shinner LIG Carol Mablay, Nanang's Touch Group Maurelia Aloste, Morning Shinner LIG Maresa Mablay, Nanang's Touch Group Evita Lorenzo, Morning Shinner LIG Liza Mangurnong, Nanang's Touch Group Flora Lacquias, Morning Shinner LIG Cristina S. Balong, Bashoy Sario Pangasan, Bashoy Gusaran Multi-purpose Cooperative, Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet (2 April 2016) Vilma Torren Josefa Kising Ostina Ebas Ginalyn B. Agne Marcelina P. Torren Pablo Alingay Jr. Loreta Comising Grace Domis Emily Colas Analyn Comising Sadsadan (Barangay), Bauko (Municipality), Mount Province (3 April 2016) Ely Rose P. Payacda, Office of Municipal Agriculture, Bauko Carolyn Wandalen, MA Bauko Myrna Botiwtiw, Barangay Secretary Paula M. Ladsic, Sadsadan Advocate on Social Development Organization (SASDO) Julia O. Belien, SASDO Teodora Baliga, SASDO Pacita Pampanico, SASDO Jovita Pmapanico, SASDO Teresita Wacnag, SASDO Rosita Billion, SASDO Mary Rose P. YA-OS, SASDO Prescilla Bayag-O, SASDO Maribel Besetan, SASDO Rosenda Dumarte, SASDO Brenda Layyag, SASDO Rebecca Mangapal, SASDO Rufina Madon-AN, SASDO Dorothy Habado, SASDO Evangeline B. Pomay-O, SASDO

140 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Hazel Taynec, SASDO Romela Lumauig, SASDO Renato Dicawan, SASDO Bruno Gadiyok, SASDO Sylvia Catian, SASDO Martin Dangpig, SASDO Mary Rose YA-OS, SASDO Shirley Satsat, SASDO Alicia Agramos, SASDO Arian Langgato, SASDO

Alecia Allig, Sadsadan Organic Movers Organization (SOMO) Norma Busay, SOMO Jocelyn Balao-IN, SOMO Benigna Paladsik, SOMO Maria Cabeli, SOMO Bayyo (Barangay), Bontoc (Municipality) (3 April 2016) Flora Puyongan, Bontoc NCIP Andres B., Bayyo Ana Marie Magwa, Bontoc NCIP Ursula Ubanan, Bayyo Angelita Kia-En, TANOD Mary Rose Backang, Bayyo Jocelyn Songduan, TANOD Junelyn Lacwin, Bayyo Agoustina Angela Vilay, Bayyo Marcena Lacri, Barangay Health Worker Gloria Akkong, Bayyo Afong Bontikey, Bayyo Layad Association Elias Longbian, Bayyo Narlin Obanan, Bayyo Layad Association Mitos Damayan, Bayyo Lourdes B. Peta, Bayyo Layad Association Lidwina Ayochok, Bayyo Agusta Akkang, Bayyo Joshua Backong, Bayyo Jonafe Damayan, Bayyo Nelly Amsiwan, Bayyo Marion Gun-Ed, Bayyo Rossana Kor-Oyen, Bayyo Concepci Binukodon, Bayyo Wilson Dammit, Bayyo Alfredo Gon-Ed, Bayyo Marcia Basilan, Bayyo Rosita Kuyao, Bayyo Pia Banooy, Bayyo Diana Peta, Bayyo Esperanza Backong, Bayyo Dionisia Laboy, Bayyo Renato Falag-Ey, Bayyo Alfreda Ngayya, Bayyo Ruben Ullay, Bayyo Carmelita Lengwa, Bayyo Lorna Comising, Bayyo Gaspar Banoog, Bayyo P. Lippad, Bayyo Emy Dammit, Bayyo Kadaclan (ancestral domain), Barling (Municipality), Mount Province (4 April 2016) Connie Wangdali, PLGU Patrick Pulagan, Barangay Official, Chupac Tito Lomoyog, Lupon, OGO-OG Corfingon Nachuli, IPR- OGO-OG Melinda Cedullo, Lunas IPMR Carlito Aiso, ENGR. 2, NCIP Hilario Fiorogat, Colco IPMR Virginia A. Sally, NCIP-R.O. Genesis Chungalan, LGU Ashley Lamaton Sr., IP V President Jonita Patacsil, Lunas Tribal Women Atongya Lagmayao, Lunas Tribal

141 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Saty F. Manao, Lunas Women Alma Alipit, Chupac A. Adcamaig, Lunas Tribal Women Belha Afidchao, Lunas Legoria Cagyao, Lunas Tribal Women Dionie Chungalan, Elder Loid Dag-A, Lunas Agroforestry Grace Kinomon, IPMR Clefton Cayaspen, Lunas Agroforestry July Pilapil, Lunas Tribal Women Barlig municipality, Mount Province (4 April 2016) Danilo Lucas, Municipal Engineer Precille Emmodias, MPDC rep. Ceferino Oryan, Municipal LGU Barlig Toribo A., Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) – Fiangtin Barangay Primitiva Witawit, Halfway Sun People's Organization Adelyn Watchorna, Halfway Sun People's Organization Grace Apsong, Macalana People's Organization Rogelio Ngaya, Macalana People's Organization Baltazar Kubaron, People's Organization, member Johnny Agpad, Takimchag Enriqueta Focad, Chawaba-SEC Cleofe Nasungan, PO Secretary Roselin Backian, FAFAI SEC. Magdalena Lapayan, PO President Angelica Andawey, FAFAI, Auditor Bontoc Provincial Management Group (4 April 2016) Johnny Lausan, PA Harry Comafu, Provincial LGU Jose F. Lampesa, MPDC-Sadanga Eva Mila Fana-ANG, Provincial LGU Carolyn Wandalen, Municipal LGU Aida Lingbanan, Provincial LGU Bauko Heidi Bete, Provincial LGU Aida P. Sulipa, MLGU Tadian Julieta Basco, Provincial LGU Maria AP-Apid, MA-Sagada Jennifer Aguilang, Provincial LGU Fructosa Marrero, MA Sabangan Eugene Colian, Provincial LGU Belong-Manubal (Barangay), Tinglayan (Municipality), Kalinga Province (5 April 2016) Tamy Lan-Agan, Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) Avelina Liw-Agan, Barangay Treasurer Teresa Patang-I, People's Organization, President Bruce Baggiw, People's Organization President Onlayao Lupa, PO Member Narciso Balut, Beans LIG Remco Mamac, Belong Esabel Kilao, Beans LIG Ammao Regiemar, Belong Judith Onga, Beans LIG Eddie Layao, Belong Eneda Lupa, Beans LIG Lingayo Appas, Belong

142 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Asic Labaddan, Beans LIG Christina Tiw-An, Belong Tasing Piclet, Ginger LIG Grace Arca Ensa Patang-I, Ginger LIG Liggao Banatao Marcelina Dawagan, Belong Ginger Tiresa Lupang Tollapang Baggiw, Coffee - Belong Aurelia Baggiw Fagkiw Nawa, Belong Coffee Delia Agtaron Laisylyn Ongyao, Swine Raiser Rigina Bucalen Ignacio Docasao, Belong Swine LIG Marilyn Bacot Alice Agtalon, Belong Legumes Norma Appag Wilfreda Wacas, Belong Legumes Betty Irene Wacas Cecilia Onawa, Belong Judy Anne Baggiw Aida Bangor, Belong Margie Appag Freddie Dunol, Belong Onga Kasi Capsin Ofod, Belong Krissencia Aclinon Aclinon Onga, Belong Japyee Farsing Baggiw Onawa, Belong Kassam Ucod Ceasar Ongyao, Belong Agar Iswag Ricardo Tinson, Belong Nestor Ogngar Rea Ongyao, Belong Bernabe Emmong Mary Layao, Belong Taliman Baggiw, Belong Armie Labaddan, Belong Rose Ulao, Man-Ubal Rodel Labaddan, Belong Jesusa Agyao, Man-Ubal Ramos Edao, Belong Sabas Lopez Lubuagan Municipal LGU (5 April 2016) Ailleen Melody E. Alya-On, MPDC, Municipal Action Officer Angela Omnas, PO President Agroforestry -Upper UMA Virginia SAGA-OC, PO Treasurer, MAGMAG-AN UPper Blacksmith Leonida Alya-ON, PO President Mabongtot Coffee Growers -Upper UMA Charisma O. Dickpus, Municipal LGU Lubuagan Ebort Tumacdang, Irrigators' Association, Mabilong Freddie Pagyao, Irrigators' Association, Mabilong Whistle Luces, Irrigators' Association, Mabilong Amerigo Gumilam, OIC -MLGU Agriculture Office Imelda Tallog, Scoda Secretary, Mabilong Natividad Acosta, Swine LIG Treasurer, Mabilong Teddy Bastag, Mabilong Coffee Growers Kalinga Provincial Management Group (6 April 2016) Flordeliza G. Moldero, OIC PPDC

143 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Alice Busiley, PPDO Kalinga Emmanuel Castro, PPDO Kalinga Lolita Camma, PPDO Kalinga Clodelia Dannang, PPDO Kalinga Ronel Salon, PPDO staff Arcely Abayen, PPDO staff Antonio Gammod, MPDC, Tanudan Ailleen Melody E. Alya-On, MPDC, Municipal Action Officer, Lubuagan Municipality Victor Aglipay, MPDC, Pasil Juliana Aclam, APA Ronald Merin, ENRO Dominador Tumbali, Refo Committee Region X (Northern Mindnao) (8-13 April 2016) DAR Region X (Cagayan de Oro) (8 April 2016) Faisa A. Mambuay, Regional Director, DAR Region X Teresita Depenoso, Assistant Regional Director for Operations, DAR Region X Engr. Dodoy Cansancio, Senior Agrarian Reform Programme Officer, DAR Region X Cecille Veloso, OIC Chief Agrarian Reform Programme Officer, DAR Region X Eddie C. Agac-ac, Assistant Regional Director for Technical Advisory Support Services DAR Region X Catalino Dimarucut, Engineer II, DAR Bukidnon Province Phoebe I. Noval, Chief Agrarian Reform Programme Officer, DAR Bukidnon Province Engr. Norberto R. Paquingan, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II, DAR Bukidnon Province Henry Salada, Engineer II, DAR Misamis Oriental Province Z. Macadindang, Provincial Agrarian Reform Programme Officer II, Misamis Oriental Province Engr. Arsenio Ladera, Chief Agrarian Reform Programme Officer, DAR Misamis Oriental Province Lelia R. Oriella National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Region X Apostol, Jimmy L., NIA - Region X, Acting Regional Manager Tenestrante, Leonila e., NIA - Region X, Acting Division Manager, Engineering & Operation Division Cruz, Aguinaldo Y., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Acting Division Manager Lucernas, Elpidio D., Jr., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Sr. Engineer – A/IRPEP Rural infra in- charge Madrid, Artemia A., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Eng'g assistant - A/IRPEP Rural infra project monitoring incharge Acobo, Belna M., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Supervising Irrigators Development Officer / IRPEP IAS / Gender incharge

144 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Peniones, Neraldine N., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Clerk Processor-B / IRPEP M&E Incharge, Bukidnon IMO Siem, Ruel M., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Institutional Development Officer-A/ assigned in Pangantucan CIS Capundag, Oscar S., Jr., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Institutional Development Officer -A / assigned in Danggawan CIS Yandug, Abelardo C., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Institutional Development Officer -A / assigned in Pangantucan CIS Perez, Kienzel Glenn B., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, Institutional Development Officer -A / assigned in Sawaga-simaya CIS Haro, Vicente Q., Jr., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, IRPEP Project in-charge/ Sawaga-Simaya CIS Capundag, Al S., NIA - Bukidnon IMO, IRPEP Project in-charge/ Pangantucan CIS Guillero, Aiko M., NIA - Region X, Sr. Computer Services Programmer/ IRPEP M&E incharge Ramos, Sarah S., NIA - Region X, Institutional Development Officer - A / IRPEP irrigators' association development component & gender focal person Irrigators' Associations met LASSCIA / Sawaga-Simaya communal irrigation system (CIS), Malaybalay BARFIA / Pangantukan CIS, Pangantukan SILFIA / La Fortuna CIS, Impasug-ong Danggawan Irrigators' Association / Danggawan CIS, Maramag Region VI (Western Visayas) (14-16 April 2016) National Irrigation Administration staff – Region VI Harni B. Jungco, Engineer A, Irrigation Management Office (IMO), NIA-Antique Irvin Millondaga, Engineer B, IMO, NIA-Antique Luis Soven Jr., Institutional Development Officer (IDO-A), NIA-Antique Randy C. Alipis, Acting Division Manager, IMO, NIA-Antique Ann Gille Millamena, Admin Aide 1, IMO, NIA-Antique Ian Kirby C. Magtulis, IDO-A, IMO, NIA-Antique Mae Gwendolyn D. Opiña, IDO-A, IMO, NIA-Antique Joy A. Babiera, Regional IA Strengthening Coordinator, NIA-Region VI Ma. Elena T. Basco, Regional IRPEP Coordinator, NIA-Region VI Christine Joy V. Villovan, Engineering Assitant B, IMO, NIA-Antique Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) (14-16 April 2016) Romeo G. Quiza, Regional Manager, NIA Region VIII John F. Llanto, IRPEP Coordinator, NIA Region VIII Presentacion L. Yee, IRPEP M&E Evaluation Coordinator, NIA Region VIII Edita V. Enderez, IA Strengthening, Coordinator, NIA Region VIII Irmingardo G. Lumpas, Supervising IDO, NIA Charisa Q. Egcasenza, Senior Processor, Accounting A, NIA

145 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Jose P. Picorro, Research Assistant B, NIA Karen C. Mades, Research Assistant B, NIA Catherine G. Macanip, Sr. Engineer A, Leyte Irrigation Management Office (IMO), NIA Edwin T. Briones, Sr. IDO A, Leyte IMO, NIA Erwin G. Gerilla, Engineer A, Leyte IMO, NIA Alejandro Culibar, OIC, Eastern-Western IMO, NIA Rizalina Gallarde, Principal Engineer A, Eastern-Western IMO, NIA Monalisa J. Cuna, Sr. IDO, Eastern-Western IMO, NIA Florie Ann N. Ymana, IDS Chief, NIA Noel Dosmanos, Engineer A, Northern Samar IMO, NIA Ruth B Abadiano, AG II, Region VIII, Department of Agriculture Rodel G. Macapañas, SSRS, Region VIII, Department of Agriculture Dalmacio L. Pajanustan, TS III, Agricultural Training Institute, Region VIII Clinia Cinco-Eusores, Supervising GOO, NFA Region VIII Jennifer A. Andoque, Institutional Development Officer, NIA Violeto N. San Pedro, President, Manloy-Barayong Irrigators Association Inc. Carlota L. Palce, Vice President, Manloy-Barayong Irrigators Association Inc. Leo Reamillo, Secretary, Manloy-Barayong Irrigators Association Inc. Damio Flores, Treasurer, Manloy-Barayong Irrigators Association Inc. Rosalinda Caballes, Auditor, Manloy-Barayong Irrigators Association Inc. Jaime Udtohan, Institutional Development Officer, NIA Teodoro V. Cinco, President, Sta. Elena Irrigators Service Association Alvin Juntilla, Vice President, Sta. Elena Irrigators Service Association Jenet C. Duma, Secretary, Sta. Elena Irrigators Service Association Teresita O. Elona, Treasurer, Sta. Elena Irrigators Service Association Leah Advento, Institutional Development Officer, NIA Jesus A. Magayon, President, Loog CIS Fisher folks and BFAR Meeting, Bislig Barangay, Tanauan (municipality), Leyte Province Susan Miranda, AT-Fisheries, LGU-Tanauan Maria Luz Caonte, President, Bislig Aqualeaders Servants Association (BALSA) Merlyn Nueva, VP, BALSA Marietta Silvio, Member, BALSA Iris Estrada, SEC, BALSA Conchita Almeriya, Member, BALSA Juanita Lerios, BOD, BALSA Ronwaldo, Member, BALSA Sin Forosa-Casilan, Auditor, BALSA Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource (BFAR), Region VIII Juan Albaladejo, Regional Director, BFAR Region VIII Josteris Granali, Assistant Regional Director, BFAR Region VIII Rodolfo Contio, Fisheries Livelihood Tech/National Stock Assessment Coordinator, BFAR Region VIII

146 Appendix II – Annex XIII EB 2017/121/R.8

Viodela Pen, CRM Section Chief/Asst Fish Coral Focal Person, BFAR Region VIII Nelia Gabon, Provincial Fisheries Officer, BFAR Leyte

147 Appendix II – Annex XIV EB 2017/121/R.8

Bibliography

IFAD documents (General) Country Technical Note on Indigenous Peoples' Issues: Republic of the Philippines. 2005. IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010, Enabling the rural poor to overcome poverty, Executive Board, 89th session, Rome, 10-14 December 2006. IFAD policy on targeting. 2006. IFAD’s response to the food price increases (REPL.VIII/3/R.4), 2008. IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-2015. Evaluation Policy, 2011. Evaluation Manual Second Edition, 2015. Annual Portfolio Review reports: Asia and the Pacific Division

Documents related to IFAD country programme in the Philippines and projects Republic of the Philippines: Country Strategic Opportunities Paper, 1999. Republic of the Philippines: Country Strategic Opportunities Programme, 2009. Annual Country Programme Review workshop proceedings/reports. Mid-term review of COSOP, 2012. Country programme review: 2010-2014. Northern Mindanao Community Initiative and Resource Management Project: project completion report; immediate impact assessment report. Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP): appraisal report; financing agreements and amendments; supervision mission reports; mid-term report; project completion report; Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project: technical review committee report; appraisal report; financing agreements and amendments; supervision mission reports; mid-term report; baseline survey report (2010); RIMS survey report (at MTR, 2012); outcome survey report 2015. Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme (RaFPEP): joint ADB/FAO/IFAD/WFP fact finding and initial programme design mission aide memoire (June 2008); quality assurance review meeting minutes; appraisal report; financing agreements and amendments; monitoring validation mission reports (RaSSFiP); supervision mission reports (IRPEP); Integrated Natural Resource Management Project (INREMP): project design report: design completion, September 2011; quality assurance meeting record. Convergence on Value Chain Enhancement for Rural Growth and Empowerment Project (CONVERGE): project design document. Fisheries, Coastal Resources and Livelihood Project (FishCORAL): detailed design document. Moving up innovations to scale. IFAD, Manila. 2014. A decade of sharing and learning: IFAD knowledge and Learning Market in the Philippines (not dated).

148 Appendix II – Annex XIV EB 2017/121/R.8

IFAD evaluation reports Rural Micro-enterprise and Finance Project: Interim Evaluation. 2002 Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project: completion evaluation. 2007. Northern Mindanao Community Initiative and Resource Management Project (NMCIREMP): Project performance assessment. 2012. Corporate level evaluation: IFAD's engagement in fragile and post-conflic states and situations. 2015. Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme: Project Performance Evaluation. 2016.

Government of the Philippines Department of Agriculture Annual Report 2013. Department of Budget and Management of the Republic of the Philippines, Sectoral distribution of Public Expenditures 2011-2013 Philippines Department of Agriculture (DA), Annual Report 2014 Government of the Philippines. Philippines Development Plan 2011-2016 National Economic and Development Authority, Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, Mid-Term Update National Economic and Development Authority. Mindanao Strategic Development Framework 2010-2020 National Economic and Development Authority, ODA Portfolio Review Report, 2015 Philippines Statistics Authority, population projections Philippines Statistics Authority, Special Report - Highlights of the 2012 Census Of Agriculture, 2012 Philippines Statistics Authority website. Accessed in February 2016 National Statistical Coordination Board, press release “Fishermen, Farmers and Children remain the poorest basic sectors” 2000 Census of Population and Housing, conducted by the National Statistics Office National Statistical Coordination Board, 2012 Full Year Official Poverty Statistics, 2013

Other documents Asian Development Bank. 2007. Country Diagnostics Studies Philippines: Critical Development Constraints Economics and Research Department. ____. 2006. Paper: Public Accountability In Official Development Assistance: The Philippines’ Delivering On Commitments And Achieving Results, 2006 ____. 2009. Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, Constraints, and Opportunities, 2009 ____. 2013. Civil Society Briefs - Philippines ____. Country Operations Business Plan: Philippines 2013-2015 Aquino, Albert P., Princess Alma B. Ani and Meliza A. Festejo. 2013. An Overview of Policies and Public Sector Investments in Philippine Agriculture. Food and Fertilizer Technology Centre for the Asia and Pacific Region: Agricultural Policy Articles.

149 Appendix II – Annex XIV EB 2017/121/R.8

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security and Nutrition: A Call for Action to Build Resilient Livelihoods, May 2015 Inocencio, Arlene, David Cristina and Briones Roehelano (undated). A Rapid Appraisal of the Irrigation Programme of the Philippine Government. International Labour Organization, Gender Equality in the Philippines, 2014 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Philippines 2016, Philippine reform environment: Successes and challenges. OECD, Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2016: Enhancing Regional Ties, 2016 OECD, Investment Policy Reviews: 2016 Philippine reform environment: Successes and challenges OECD, SIGI 2014 UNCAC, UN Convention Against Corruption Civil Society Review: Philippines, 2012 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), country pages UNDP, Human Development Report 2014 UNDP, Human Development Report, 2013 UNESCAP, Overview of Natural Disasters and their Impacts in Asia and the Pacific 1970- 2014 World Bank, World Development Indicators World Bank. 2005. The Mindanao Conflict in the Philippines: Roots, Costs, and Potential Peace Dividend, Paper 24, February 2005 World Bank. 2007 Technical Working Paper: Philippines: Agriculture Public Expenditure Review, 2007 World Bank. 2007. Philippines Agriculture: Public Expenditure Review, 2007 World Bank. 2009. Technical Working Paper: Land Reform, Rural Development and Poverty in the Philippines: Revising the Agenda. World Bank: Independent Evaluation Group. 2013. The World Bank Group and the Global Food Crisis: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group Response. June 2013 World Bank. 2014. Analytical and Advisory Assistance for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Philippines (Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness): a Synthesis Paper (2011) reported in document 74097-PH Project Appraisal Document for the Philippines Rural Development Project, July 2014 World Bank. 2016. Philippine Economic Update Moving Full Speed Ahead: Accelerating Reforms to Create More and Better Jobs, April 2016. World Bank. 2014. Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines (2015-2018). World Economic Forum, Global Gender Gap Report, 2015 World Food Programme (WFP), Country Brief, March 2016 Broad-based Strategies for Food Security and the Changing World Food Markets: Food Security Strategies Forum (13-14 March 2012). Documented by Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme (April 2012).

150